WRITTEN QUESTION P-1362/01 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Council. Human rights situation in Nigeria.
Date: 2001-04-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Nigeria, democratisation, human rights, the EU's international role

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/221

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

The Honourable Member has raised an important issue concerning the cultural integrity of cinema works,
when dubbed into other languages. There is not any Community legislation establishing rules and
restrictions regarding dubbing of films.

Whilst the Commission has not taken a position on this specific issue, it should be noted that it has,
through the programme MEDIA (now replaced and updated by MEDIA PLUS) encouraged the circulation
of non-national films throughout the Community. In addition, the issue of cultural diversity figures high
on the Commission(cid:146)s cultural agenda.

(2001/C 340 E/255)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1347/01

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Rome Convention

Will the Commission please give a definite timetable for the presentation of its porposal, and also define
the nature of that proposal (i.e. Green Paper or Draft Regulation), on the Rome Convention (II) on non-
contractual obligations and outline its clear intentions with regard to consultation on what is widely
known to be a contentious and long-awaited proposal?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

The Honourable Member raises the question of the amendment to the Rome Convention (II), concerning
the possibility for laying down, at Community level, uniform rules of private international law relating to
the applicable law to non-contractual obligations.

The issue of the applicable law to non-contractual obligations is a complex subject which is being carefully
examined within the Commission.

The Commission has in mind in particular the problems associated with the special characteristics of
electronic commerce, as raised by all the interested parties who have been expressing their views since the
public hearings organised by the Commission on (cid:145)electronic commerce: jurisdiction and applicable law(cid:146) in
November 1999.

Being fully aware of most of the questions at stake and of the solutions which should be brought to them,
the Commission is taking the view that the appropriate way forward at this point is to proceed to present
directly a proposal for a Regulation.

The proposal should indeed not affect the existing Community acquis.

The Commission will seek the views of the interested parties on the text to be drafted before its adoption
as a formal proposal in the second semester 2001.

(2001/C 340 E/256)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1362/01

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 April 2001)

Subject: Human rights situation in Nigeria

Some states in northern Nigeria have adopted Islamic religious law (the Sharia). This has led to serious
unrest and violence in which thousands of civilians died last year. There is a real possibility of civil war

C 340 E/222

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

leaders do not seem aware of the
and of unrest spreading to the whole continent. Nigeria(cid:146)s political
seriousness of the country(cid:146)s political situation when they try to entice international investments into the
country. It seems that at present the EU is the only actor on the international scene strong enough to force
Nigeria(cid:146)s political leaders to tackle this problem decisively, and seek a solution.

What does the EU intend to do to remedy the serious situation in Nigeria? Does the EU intend to take the
situation in Nigeria in account in its policies on business investments and trade?

Reply

(20 July 2001)

The European Union maintains a close and regular political dialogue with Nigeria, with a view to
strengthen the existing process in the country towards a consolidation of democracy and the respect for
human rights. The EU thereby endeavours to follow a constructive approach, welcoming the achievements
of the Nigerian authorities to date, while encouraging them to make progress in areas where they still face
considerable challenges. Notwithstanding this positive and constructive approach towards Nigeria, the
Council has publicly stated its position in cases of human rights violations, whenever appropriate. For
instance, on 30 January 2001 the Presidency issued a declaration on behalf of the European Union on
corporal punishment in Zamfara State, Nigeria.

With regard to investment and trade, the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention is drawn to the EU Common
Position on Nigeria, adopted by the Council on 14 May 2001. In this Common Position, the EU sets out
its overall policy on Nigeria, including on the link between the consolidation of democracy and the socio-
economic development of the country.

(2001/C 340 E/257)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1363/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: The (cid:145)beer tie(cid:146)

Following the recent opinion of the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice in the case of
Crehan v. Courage (C-453/99), what is the Commission(cid:146)s current view of the (cid:145)beer tie(cid:146) whereby pub
tenants are obliged to buy their beer from a supplier nominated by the company owning the pub?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2001)

The Commission(cid:146)s current policy on beer ties is set out in the new general Block Exemption Regulation on
Vertical Agreements (1), together with the associated Guidelines on Vertical Restraints (2). The new Block
Exemption applies to contracts signed since 1 June 2000. In brief, it states that suppliers whose market
share does not exceed 30 % may impose a non-compete obligation ((cid:145)tie(cid:146)) on their buyer for as long as the
buyer occupies the supplier(cid:146)s premises. Where the buyer does not occupy the supplier(cid:146)s premises, the
maximum duration for ties is five years.

The Commission or national competition authorities may withdraw the benefit of the Block Exemption
where particular agreements have effects which are incompatible with the conditions of Article 81(3) (ex-
Article 85) of the EC Treaty, for example where markets are foreclosed by parallel networks of tying
agreements. The Commission may also disapply the Block Exemption in relation to an entire sector where
parallel networks cover more than 50 % of the relevant market.