WRITTEN QUESTION E-4002/00 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission. Damage to marine life from military activity.
Date: 2000-12-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, biotope, environmental protection, marine life, military manoeuvres, protected area

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/43

the VIKH, that it saw no reason to initiate proceedings under the competition rules laid down in the
EC Treaty. It stated that the collection of royalties by GEMA for the audio reproduction of works protected
by copyright related rights in restaurants does not in itself represent an infringement of these provisions.
VIKH(cid:146)s letter of 26 March 1999 does not provide any indication that the calculation of the fees infringed
these provisions. Nor does VIKH(cid:146)s letter of 19 September 2000 contain, according to a preliminary view of
the Competition Directorate-General, any new information that might justify the initiation of proceedings.
The VIKH was also informed of this.

After the Commission Decision of 2 June 1971 in the GEMA case (71/224), GEMA(cid:146)s statutes were
amended on a number of occasions. Following these amendments the Commission adopted a negative
clearance decision on 4 December 1981 (82/204). The Commission did not find it necessary to grant an
individual exemption.

2.
The Commission does not share VIKH(cid:146)s view that music played in restaurants is not subject to the
payment of royalty fees to GEMA. As in the examples mentioned by way of comparison by the
Honourable Member, playing of music in restaurants is an exploitation having commercial character.

The GEMA Decision (71/224) does not deal with this question. However, rightholders or holders of related
rights, such as broadcasters, should receive royalties (remuneration) for music played in an establishment
whose principal purpose/activity is commercial in nature. This remuneration is provided for not only in
national law of the Member States but also in international convention law (Article 11bis of the Berne
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and Article 12 of the Rome Convention for
the protection of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organisations). Community law
and especially Article 8 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992, on rental right and
lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (1)
is in
accordance with international law and with the Community international commitments. Furthermore, the
World Trade Organisation-TRIPs Agreement incorporating Article 11bis of the Berne Convention does not
allow exemptions from paying royalties or obtaining the right holder(cid:146)s permission for (cid:145)small establish-
ments(cid:146) that play broadcast music (such as restaurants, car dealers or hairdressing establishments, for
example).

3. and 4.
Contracts with undertakings such as those mentioned by the Honourable Member do not
necessarily require an individual exemption. Such contracts do not automatically fall within the scope of
the Community competition rules if they are confined solely to the use of the copyright for valuable
consideration. However, if because of an unjustified level of copyright fees that had an appreciable effect
on trade between Member States, such contracts represented an abuse of a dominant position within the
meaning of Article 82 (ex Article 86) of the EC Treaty, they would be prohibited and this infringement
would not be exemptable. The Commission is however not in the possession of information that would
justify such a conclusion.

(1) OJ L 346, 27.11.1992.

(2001/C 235 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4002/00

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Damage to marine life from military activity

The US has recently cancelled military training exercises in some marine areas to avoid inflicting damage
on sensitive marine habitats. This comes as the result of a public consultation period before permission to
undertake military exercises is granted.

C 235 E/44

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

In the light of this, can the Commission:

(a) outline what knowledge it has of damage done to marine life by military activity undertaken by the

Member States?

(b) State whether it plans to introduce such a public consultation mechanism to protect mammals and

other wildlife in European waters?

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

(20 February 2001)

Certain marine habitats and species are given specific protection by the Habitats Directive (1), the principal
piece of European legislation protecting natural habitats and wild fauna and flora.

Article 17 of the Directive requires Member States to report on measures taken pursuant to the Directive.
As the Commission is due to receive the first such reports only in the next few months, it cannot yet
provide the information requested by the Honourable Member.

Article 6 of the Habitats Directive provides for mechanisms to ensure that sites belonging to the Natura
2000 network, including marine sites, are protected against any activity which could seriously compromise
their state of conversation. Provision is made here for the general public to be consulted where
appropriate.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

(OJ L 206, 22.7.1992).

(2001/C 235 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4005/00

by Carles-Alfred Gas(cid:242)liba i B(cid:246)hm (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Waste water treatment

The Segura is a river whose course takes it through the Spanish Autonomous Communities of Castilla la
Mancha, Murcia and the Valencian Community. By the time it reaches the sea in the district of Vega Baja,
its waters are extremely polluted, with all that this means in terms of negative impact on the environment,
farming and quality of life in this district of the Alacant provincial region.

Since 1998 I have been bringing the worrying state of this river and the impact of the pollution of its
waters to the attention of the European authorities.

According to Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water, both the
Spanish authorities and the Valencian Autonomous Community itself are failing to meet Community
guidelines on waste water treatment in agglomerations of over 10 000 inhabitants in sensitive areas and
over 15 000 inhabitants in non-sensitive areas.

Does the Commission have figures for the current pollution levels in the River Segura?

What measures does it intend to take to ensure that the environmental standards set by Directive 91/271/
EEC are met within the deadline provided, mainly 31 December 1998 for agglomerations of over 15 000
inhabitants in non-sensitive areas and agglomerations of over 10 000 inhabitants in sensitive areas, and
31 December 2000 for agglomerations of over 10 000 inhabitants in non-sensitive areas?

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.