WRITTEN QUESTION E-0619/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Democratic control of European commercial policy.
Date: 2001-03-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Parliament, common commercial policy, democratic deficit, interinstitutional relations (EU), powers of the EP, powers of the institutions (EU), supervisory power

C 261 E/160

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

How many complaints had the Commission received when it started the process of talking to the various
footballing authorities?

How many complaints has it received in total?

Who made these complaints and why?

How many representatives received by the Commission have asked for the current system to be
maintained?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Four formal complaints gave rise to the proceedings opened against the International Federation of
Association Football (FIFA) in December 1998. Subsequently, the Commission received a further formal
complaint.

By September 2000, when the Commission stepped up its discussions with the football authorities, two
complaints, both concerning the same case, had already been withdrawn following a settlement with FIFA.

As a matter of principle the Commission is unable to disclose the names of complainants in matters
concerning procedures relating to application of the competition rules of the EC Treaty.

The complaints concerned two aspects of the FIFA rules on international transfers: a total prohibition of
unilateral termination of contracts and payment of compensation for transfer at the end of the contractual
period in situations not covered by the judgment in Bosman.

The Commission has received many representations advocating the retention of the current FIFA rules. It
has also received many others urging that those rules be amended.

After a meeting on 5 March 2001, FIFA, in agreement with the Union of European Football Associations
(UEFA), undertook to make changes in the very near future to its 1997 rules on the status and transfer of
players in accordance with principles that have been made public.

(2001/C 261 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0619/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(2 March 2001)

Subject: Democratic control of European commercial policy

There is in effect no democratic control of the EU(cid:146)s commercial policy. The real power and decision-
making centre is located in the fifteen national civil servants of the 133 committee. This committee is
named after Article 133 of the EC treaty and was set up by the Coumcil to support the Commission.

Commissioner Lamy has proposed a substantial increase in Parliament(cid:146)s say in terms of commercial policy
(P-3674/00) (1). He is aware that referring to the role played in the Council by the governments (cid:129) which
are accountable to their own national parliaments (cid:129) is no remedy for the lack of democratic control.

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/161

This is why Mr Lamy has called for parliamentary control at European level. This would increase not only
the duty of responsibility with regard to commercial policy but also the effectiveness of that policy,
because the trading partners would then realise that the Commission has full support in its negotiations
from the democratically elected representatives of the European people.

Does the Council subscribe to the Commission(cid:146)s view that parliamentary control at European level would
not only increase the duty of responsibility with regard to commercial policy but also the effectiveness of
that policy, because the trading partners would then realise that the Commission has full support in its
negotiations from the democratically elected representatives of the European people?

(cid:129) If so, what action will the Council take to ensure full parliamentary control of European commercial

policy?

(cid:129) If not, what is the Council(cid:146)s reason for not seeking full parliamentary control at European level despite

the Commission(cid:146)s arguments?

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 190.

Reply

(30 May 2001)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his Written Questions E-4034/00,
E-4036/00 and E-4037/00.

(2001/C 261 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0620/01

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Respect for regional and minority languages

In reply to a previous question (E-3702/00) (1) on the diversity of languages in the European Union,
Commissioner Reding said that respect for linguistic and cultural diversity was one of the main principles
of the Union.

The Commissioner also announced that she would inquire into ways of protecting and promoting regional
and minority languages via a special action programme.

1. When exactly will this inquiry be completed, and when can an action programme be launched?

Is the Commission prepared to spell out the Copenhagen criteria(cid:146)s rather vague description of

2.
(cid:145)respect for minorities(cid:146) so that minority languages can be respected and protected?

3. What regulatory action can the Commission take against Member States if the languages legislation
in force in such countries is used only as an additional accession guarantee and if there is absolutely no
intention of affording additional guarantees for the minority in question?

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 119.