WRITTEN QUESTION E-2552/01 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Communication between the Commission and the public.
Date: 2001-09-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: dissemination of EU information, euro, information policy, promotion of the European idea, public awareness campaign, public relations

C 134 E/46

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

Concerning Council Directive 85/337/EEC, as modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March
1997 (1), it should be noted that the project mentioned by the Honourable Member may fall within its
scope, since it is listed in Annex II thereof (point 10, e) ‘canalisation and flood-relief works’).

With regard to projects of the classes listed in Annex II, these shall be made subject to an assessment, in
accordance with Articles 5 to 10, where Member States consider that their characteristics so require.
Among the elements that the Member States will take into account in order to decide whether a project
listed in Annex II is to be subject to an environmental
impact assessment, article 2 of the Directive
mentions criteria such as its nature, size or location.

The facts raised by the Honourable Member are also the subject of a complaint received by the
Commission.
the Commission has requested
information from the Spanish authorities in order to verify whether this project fully complies with
applicable Community law.

In the framework of

the handling of

this complaint,

The Commission will not hesitate to take all the measures necessary to ensure that Community law is
complied with in this case.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(2002/C 134 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2552/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Communication between the Commission and the public

(19 September 2001)

The personal letter sent directly by the Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs to thousands
and thousands of firms and professionals, as well as meeting the objective of making Europeans aware of
their crucial date with the euro, also had the effect of making each of the addressees grateful for the fact
that such a high-ranking figure in the Commission wrote to them personally on a specific matter of
particular importance.

If we are looking for ways in which the Commission might move closer to Community citizens in a more
direct and personal way, there is no doubt that this letter sets a good example.

Can the Commission say whether, following the success of this information campaign based on personal
letters, it will add this approach to the list of possible ways in which it should move closer to Community
citizens as they themselves wish, given that they are gradually coming to understand that the Commission
is having a growing influence on their lives?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2001)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for expressing his appreciation for the actions taken in
communicating directly with the public on the issue of the Euro.

As the Honourable Member will be aware, on 27 June 2001, the Commission adopted a Communication
on ‘A new framework for co-operation on activities concerning the information and communication policy
of the European Union’ (1).
Its aim is to establish a new inter-institutional relationship based on a
framework for co-operation on activities concerning the information and communication policy of the
Union. This is the first step in a process that will lead to a more effective and coherent strategy that
improves the quality and delivery of information and stimulates greater public engagement.

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/47

Part of that process is the consideration of existing and new instruments and tools for the provision of
information, including the sending of personalised letters. More direct communication with citizens about
the Union and its policies will help to bridge the current information gap and it will enhance people’s
understanding of the Union.

There will also be an evaluation of all aspects of the euro campaign, including direct communication with
the public. This evaluation will clearly influence the conduct of future information campaigns.

(1) COM(2001) 354 final.

(2002/C 134 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2554/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2001)

Subject: EU’s waiving of demands for the United States to be penalised in the Foreign Sales Corporation

case

The World Trade Organisation has ruled in favour of the European arguments against the multimillion FSC
(Foreign Sales Corporation) programme for the second time in less than two years.

The WTO considers this scheme to be incompatible with its rules and is obliging Washington to rectify the
situation.

Given that the EU previously threatened to demand a penalty of at least $ 4 billion if the WTO backed its
arguments, will the Commission demand payment of that penalty, make a smaller claim or simply waive
its demand by means of an agreement which is satisfactory for both sides?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2001)

In October 1999, a Panel of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruled that the United States (US) tax
treatment for ‘Foreign Sales Corporations’ (FSC) is incompatible with WTO provisions. In February 2000,
the WTO Appellate Body confirmed the Panel ruling.

In September 2000, the Community and the US concluded a procedural agreement for the handling of this
case.

This agreement provides the following:

C The Community will launch an ‘expedited’ WTO panel procedure, which may include an appeal to the

WTO Appellate Body, to examine the WTO compatibility of the FSC replacement legislation.

C The Community will also request an authorisation from the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to
adopt countermeasures in the form of suspension of concessions against the US indicating the amount
of countermeasures and the preliminary list of US products on which sanctions will be imposed. In
case the US objects to the level of countermeasures requested by the Community, the matter will be
referred to WTO arbitration. However, the arbitration procedure will be suspended until the expedited
WTO panel procedure is concluded.

C The Community will not impose countermeasures on the US unless the FSC replacement legislation is

condemned by the WTO.