WRITTEN QUESTION E-0445/01 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission. Blacklisting.
Date: 2001-02-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, criminal law, exchange of information, fraud against the EU, penalty, rights of the defence

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/51

(2001/C 318 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0440/01

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: Treaty of Nice and changes to Article 133 concerning intellectual property and trade in services

Pursuant to the new provisions of Article 133(5), the (cid:145)commercial aspects of intellectual property(cid:146) as well
as (cid:145)trade in services(cid:146) (subject to the listed derogations) will now fall within the Community(cid:146)s powers on the
common commercial policy. However, Article 133(7)
lays down further provisions which restrict the
extension of those powers in relation to international negotiations and agreements on intellectual property
issues not covered by Article 133(5).

Will the Commission please explain:

1. Whether there is a definitive agreement between the Commission and Member States on precisely
which aspects of intellectual property are commercial and which are not? If so, will it agree to publish
it? If not, how and when will this be defined?

2. Whether the Member States, who are all signatories to the TRIPs Agreement, will continue to play
a direct role in the current and future negotiations on intellectual property issues at WTO level and in
other international fora, and whether national consent will be required for the conclusion of any such
agreements?

3. How and when the European Parliament will be consulted specifically on the proposed changes to

Article 133 of the Treaty, as required by the existings provisions of Article 133(5)?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

There is no legally binding definition in Community law of the terms (cid:145)commercial aspects of intellectual
property(cid:146) used in the new Article 133 (ex Article 113), paragraph 5, first indent EC Treaty as amended by
the Treaty of Nice.

The competence for agreements on commercial aspects of intellectual property will be brought under
Community competence for the common commercial policy by the new Article 133, paragraph 5.

In this regard, the Commission regrets that its initiative to improve the institutional position of the
Parliament in the conduct of the common commercial policy was not accepted by the Intergovernmental
Conference of Nice. Irrespective of this, the Commission will continue its policy of transparency and close
co-operation with the Parliament in trade matters.

The enabling cause contained in the current Article 133, paragraph 5, which indeed requires a proposal
from the Commission and consultation of the Parliament has not been activated. Rather, this provision will
be replaced by the new Article 133 paragraph 7.

(2001/C 318 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0445/01

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: Blacklisting

According to the Commission(cid:146)s answer to Question P-3153/00 (1),
operators who present a risk of non-reliability.

it is possible to keep a register of

C 318 E/52

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

How can the concept of (cid:145)final decision of an administrative authority(cid:146) cited by the Commission be
reconciled with the customary legal guarantees in accordance with which a person is innocent until he has
acknowledged his guilt or a court has found him guilty?

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 81.

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2001)

The Commission points out that the measures provided for under Community law can be taken only in
compliance with certain principles. Generally speaking, the principles of the presumption of innocence and
guilt apply primarily to matters of criminal law. The system of blacklists referred to by the Honourable
Member is designed to implement administrative prerogatives.

The Commission recalls that Council Regulation (EC) No 1469/95 of 22 June 1995 on measures to be
taken with regard to certain beneficiaries of operations financed by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF (1)
and the implementing Commission Regulation (EC) No 745/96 of 24 April 1996 (2) distinguish between
two categories of non-reliable operators:

(cid:129) those who, according to a final decision of an administrative or judicial authority, have deliberately or
through serious negligence committed an irregularity in respect of relevant Community provisions and
have unjustly benefited from a financial advantage or attempted to benefit therefrom; and

(cid:129) those who, have been the subject of a preliminary administrative or judicial report by the competent
authorities of the Member State, without prejudice to the possibility of this conclusion being revised.

Some of the measures under these Regulations may be applied to the second category of operators (tighter
controls of operation and precautionary measures such as the suspension of payments for operations
under way or the release of a guarantee). However, the only real penalty for which there is any provision
(cid:129) exclusion (cid:129) may be imposed only where an irregularity has been the subject of a final decision of an
administrative or judicial authority. This is an administrative, not a criminal penalty and may be imposed
only on certain conditions, notably that the operator has had a prior hearing and has the right to appeal in
accordance with the national law of the Member State concerned.

(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.
(2) OJ L 102, 25.4.1996.

(2001/C 318 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0451/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 February 2001)

Subject: Management of toxic waste in Greece

Article 6 of Directive 91/689/EEC (1) on hazardous waste provides that the competent authorities shall
draw up plans for the management of such waste. Furthermore, Article 4(2) of this Directive requires the
producers of hazardous waste and the establishments and undertakings transporting such waste to keep
records. Article 2 (2) of the same Directive provides that special records must also be kept concerning the
disposal of hazardous waste in tips.

According to the Commission(cid:146)s report on the implementation of Directive 91/689/EEC, Greece has failed
to draw up a management plan and does not keep records. Furthermore, there is neither a centre for
processing waste nor a special transit area in ports. As a result of all this, the environment in Greece is
being ruined by toxic waste which is processed and stored without any controls.

Will the Commission comment on the situation described above? What measures does it intend to take to
address this situation?

(1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.