WRITTEN QUESTION E-3633/00 by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Council. Report on Directive 95/46/EC and its possible revision.
Date: 2000-11-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EC Directive, European Parliament, disclosure of information, drafting of EU law, fundamental rights, personal data, protection of privacy

C 187 E/22

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2001)

Mount Syringa in Syros is part of the area that the Greek authorities nominated for inclusion in the Natura
2000 network under Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora (1). As such,
it is important to protect the area from commercial activities that may
undermine its conservation value. However, despite its importance for the local and migratory bird
population, this area is not listed as a special protection area under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of
2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) and does not fulfil the ornithological criteria to be listed.

An environment impact assessment must be carried out for the project and alternative solutions must be
looked into.

In this context, and on the basis of data submitted by the Honourable Member, the Commission will
contact the Greek authorities to ascertain whether the impact assessment for the project in question fully
took into account the site nominated for the Natura 2000 network and alternative solutions.

The project in question was selected by the Greek authorities for co-financing under measure 3.2 of the
Energy Operational Programme of the Community Support Framework for the period 1994-1999. This
programme was set up, inter alia, to co-finance energy projects in the private sector to develop wind
energy in Greece.

According to information received by the intermediary body responsible for the above-mentioned measure,
the project has not yet been carried out following a complaint lodged by a group of citizens to the Greek
government concerning the location of the wind turbines.

In line with the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission will not intervene concerning the location of
a public or private infrastructure in a Member State, provided that Community legislation on environ-
mental and other aspects is respected. Moreover, again for reasons of subsidiarity, the Commission is not
always informed of the location of projects, but it contacts national authorities when third parties bring to
its attention infringements of Community law.

The Commission has not carried out any studies on the siting of wind turbines. Information is, however,
available from the Greek authorities who have had several studies carried out into the most suitable sites in
terms of energy yield.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2001/C 187 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3633/00

by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Council

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Report on Directive 95/46/EC and its possible revision

Article 33 of Directive 95/46/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data reads:
(cid:145)The Commission shall report to the Council and the European Parliament at regular intervals, starting not
later than three years after the date referred to in Article 32(1), on the implementation of this Directive,
attaching to its report, if necessary, suitable proposals for amendments. The report shall be made public.
The Commission shall examine, in particular, the application of this Directive to the data processing of
sound and image data relating to natural persons and shall submit any appropriate proposals which prove
to be necessary, taking account of developments in information technology and in the light of the state of
progress in the information society.(cid:146)

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/23

Does the Council believe it is necessary to amend the directive? If so, in what respects and when? What is
the timescale envisaged by the Council for examining, and stating a position on, proposal for a directive
COM(2000) 385?

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

Reply

(24 April 2001)

The Council has not yet discussed whether it is necessary to amend general Directive 95/46/EC and if so,
in what respects. It will do so when it receives the first report from the Commission on the implementation
of the Directive, together with any proposals the Commission may make. Under Articles 32 and 33 of the
Directive, the report is due to be presented by the end of October 2001.

Moreover, on 28 August 2000 the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal for a Directive
concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications
sector (COM 2000 (385)). The aim of the proposal is not to make major changes to Directive 97/66/EC,
but merely to adjust and update its content to take account of technical developments and ensure that the
rules are technology-neutral and afford a high level of protection. The proposal is part of the legislative
package which the Commission forwarded to the Council at the end of August 2000 in the context of the
review of the regulatory framework for telecommunications. The Council began its examination of four of
the proposals in the package without delay. As regards the proposal in question, and on the basis of the
current scheduling of meetings, it is planned to include this item on the agenda for the Council meetings
on 5 and 6 April and 27 and 28 June 2001, with a view to holding a debate whose content will be
dictated by the stage reached in the technical work by the Council Working Party.

(2001/C 187 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3653/00

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 November 2000)

Subject: The Dutch Media Act and competition between public and commercial radio stations

In order to prevent media concentration in (commercial) radio, Article 82f of the Dutch Media Act
prohibits commercial suppliers from participating in more than one frequency package simultaneously. In
contrast to public broadcasting, they are not allowed to offer combinations of air time for advertising.
However, because of combination sales the public radio stations receive 42 % of the market(cid:146)s total
spending on advertising. This is because the five radio stations combine to sell advertising time and they
offer advertisers combinations of air times on the different stations. Public broadcasting receives most
revenue on the popular radio 3 station which is used to subsidise other public stations.

Does the Commission think that determining dominant market positions depends not only on the

1.
position of commercial radio stations but also on that of public stations?

2.
Does the Commission agree that the distinction made by the Media Act between public and
commercial broadcasting in respect of advertising sales results in uneven competition between the public
and commercial radio stations? If so, is this compatible with the EC Treaty and/or the Protocol annexed to
the Treaty of Amsterdam on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States?

3.
Does the Commission think that investing one public broadcasting station(cid:146)s profits from advertising
revenue in another public station, via cross-subsidisation, changes the terms of competition between public
and commercial broadcasting in such a way as to harm the public interest?