WRITTEN QUESTION E-2005/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Crisis in the new economy and risks to savers.
Date: 2001-07-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United States, bankruptcy, economic consequence, new technology, protection of shareholders, restriction on competition, shareholder, stock exchange, type of business

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/25

(2002/C 115 E/024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2002/01

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Subject: Arrangements for assessing projects relating to developing countries

the European Parliament

‘urges the Member States,

In paragraph 33 of its resolution on the Third UN Conference on the Least-Developed Countries (B5-0246/
the international organisations and the
2001),
Commission to take due account of the aspects relating to peace-making, peace-building and peace-
keeping at all stages (planning, execution and assessment) of programmes in countries which have recently
emerged from an armed conflict or in countries in process of emerging from such a conflict and still
having to deal with displaced persons and refugee populations’. Since it is important for peace-making,
peace-building and peace-keeping measures to be applied comprehensively, can the Commission explain
what action it has taken or is intending to take in connection with paragraph 33 of the European
Parliament’s resolution?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The Commission is currently implementing a number of the proposals and recommendations it put
forward in its recent Communication on conflict prevention (1). Some of those recommendations concern
countries in post-conflict situations or in the process of emerging from conflict, such as those referred to
by the Honourable Member. Furthermore, following its Communication on linking relief, rehabilitation and
development (2), the Commission is considering a range of measures to facilitate donor coordination and to
increase its flexibility and rapidity for mobilising funds in order to improve its contribution to post-crisis
situations.

One of the main recommendations of the Communication on conflict prevention is to integrate better this
dimension (and thus also peace-making, peace-building and peace-keeping aspects) into its strategies vis-à-
vis partner countries and its external cooperation programmes. The current review of Country Strategy
Papers for all cooperation partner countries provides an opportunity to do this.

For countries in conflict, the Country Support Strategy (CSS) will focus on the Community’s role in peace
building and resolution. Where appropriate, the Commission will engage more in activities supporting
democratic institutions, civil society, reform of the ‘security’ sector as well as,
in the specific case of
countries in post-conflict situation, rehabilitation programmes and demobilisation disarmament and
reintegration programmes. It will also give greater attention to the situation of children affected by war.

Other recommendations of the communication aim at improving the efficiency of actions targeting
specific causes of conflict (such as drug trafficking, spread of small arms, conflict diamonds, etc.), the
Union’s capacity to react quickly to nascent conflicts and the international cooperation with all the Union’s
partners (partner countries, non governmental organisations, international organisations).

(1) COM(2001) 211 final.
(2) COM(2001) 153 final.

(2002/C 115 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2005/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Crisis in the new economy and risks to savers

(6 July 2001)

The bankruptcy proceedings started by American leading-edge technology companies have also had
repercussions in Europe. The Italian case is particularly striking because, in addition to the weak safeguards

C 115 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

for share-owning savers, many consultants tend to run the business of companies once these have gone
public, earning substantial commissions in the process, and later claim to be professional rescuers or to be
seeking buyers for companies in financial difficulty. In the United States a conflict of interest of that kind
would be roundly condemned. Finally,
infant new technology industries has reduced
competition and strengthened dominant positions, thus undermining consumer protection.

the failure of

Since it is surely aware of the situation, what steps will the Commission take to prevent savers from being
put at a further disadvantage?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2001)

The Honourable Member’s question touches upon many issues relating to Community law.

In principle, there are no financial guarantees for those purchasing shares (even in the United States). An
investor in shares is always exposed to a certain risk of loss.

Nevertheless, legal protection for savers and shareholders has been subject to a gradual strengthening at
Community level for many years now (1).

As far as company information and information on securities offered to the public are concerned, certain
texts have been adopted which stipulate the minimum amount of information to be made available, both
when a company is first listed and throughout its life on the stock exchange. These texts have recently
been codified by Directive 2001/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2001 on
the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing and on information to be published on those
securities (2).

As for the information to be disclosed when a company is first listed on the stock exchange, the
Commission has recently adopted a proposal on prospectuses (3) with the aim of
improving and
harmonising the amount of information required. This covers the new economy’s growth stocks despite
the fact that these are not covered by current Community law.

The same approach is envisaged for the periodic and permanent bonds of companies once they are
admitted for trading on a regulated market. The Commission launched a public consultation on this matter
on 17 July 2001.

As far as commercial relations between broker and client are concerned (‘conduct of business rules’), the
Commission intends to propose an amendment to the Directive on investment services to improve
conditions for investors. The Commission is currently carrying out a public consultation on this matter.

Lastly, the Commission has recently adopted a proposal for a directive on market abuse (3) which will help
to prohibit practices that run counter to the smooth functioning of the markets, in particular false or
misleading information.

Moreover, Community law also covers the provisions on bankruptcies of investment firms etc (4).

Each Member State also has recourse to supervisory authorities which monitor everything from
competition (in Italy, the Competition and Market Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del
Mercato) and the Banca d’Italia) to stock market transactions (e.g. Italy’s Consob).

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/27

At present, the Commission does not have sufficient facts at its disposal to determine the impact that the
bankruptcies of new technology startup companies will have on future dominant positions.

(1) See,

in particular: B Council Directive 89/298/EEC of 17 April 1989 coordinating the requirements for the
drawing-up, scrutiny and distribution of the prospectus to be published when transferable securities are offered to
the public, OJ L 124, 5.5.1989 B Council Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the
securities field, OJ L 141, 11.6.1993 B Council Directive 89/592/EEC of 13 November 1989 coordinating
regulations on insider dealing, OJ L 334, 18.11.1989.

(2) OJ L 184, 6.7.2001.
(3) OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001.
(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, OJ L 160, 30.6.2000.

(2002/C 115 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2007/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Subject: Return of the property of refugees from Venezia Giulia, Istria, and Dalmatia

A few days ago, thousands of refugees from Venezia Giulia, Istria, and Dalmatia demonstrated outside the
Croatian and Slovenian consulates in New York to demand the return of or, at the very least, fair
compensation for the property which they were forced to abandon as a result of the treaties whereby Italy
ceded part of Venezia Giulia, Istria, and Dalmatia to the then Republic of Yugoslavia.

This is an important issue that will need to be borne in mind as the EU moves towards enlargement. A
further point to consider, at any rate as far as Croatia is concerned, is the failure to recognise the linguistic
minorities (of whom Italian-speakers are the largest). By leaving their homes, the Italian refugees chose not
only a nation, but also freedom, the same freedom for which Croatia and Slovenia have fought in recent
European history.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the above matter?

2.
Does it not believe that the problem should be resolved to help bring about an eagerly awaited and
desired historic reconciliation and foster mutual understanding of the human sufferings endured in
different eras?

3.
Does it not believe that it should impress upon all the countries which have applied to join the EU
that, since the Union’s inception, the Member States have been inspired by certain values and principles,
first and foremost human rights and other fundamental rights such as the right of ownership, which have
been unjustly violated on account of the expropriation and nationalisation carried out by dictatorships in
the past?

Does it not believe that, after such a long silence, the Union could consider what help it might give
4.
to populations who have been compelled to abandon their homeland because of totalitarianism or because
territories have had to be ceded under international treaties?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2001)

The Commission is aware that World War II has left a heavy legacy for the lives of citizens of Italy

1.
and of the countries of former Yugoslavia.

2.
The respective states have aimed to undo this legacy by means of bilateral agreements and other
forms of cooperation, thanks to which the bilateral relations between the countries concerned are multiple
and positive at present. The closer cooperation of Slovenia and Croatia with the Union, embodied by the
Europe Agreement between the Community and Slovenia and by the Stabilisation and Association
Agreement initialled between the Community and Croatia on 14 May 2001, have helped to form an
additional framework for strengthening cooperation, also at the level of regions, and for addressing
Europe’s history in a constructive and equitable manner.