WRITTEN QUESTION E-2958/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. List of judgements against Turkey by the European Court of Human Rights.
Date: 2001-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Court of Human Rights, Türkiye, penalty

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/51

requires

insurance intermediaries

to possess appropriate general, commercial and
The proposal
professional knowledge and ability. It falls to the intermediary’s home Member State to determine the
level and content of such knowledge, which must in all cases be sufficient to ensure an appropriate level of
professional competence. It is also the Member States which determine the bodies that will be allowed to
provide the training required under national law, pursuant to the Directive.

As regards professional indemnity cover, the proposal provides for a minimum level of insurance cover or
an equivalent guarantee (such as a bank guarantee) of € 1 million per claim. The intermediary is not
required to take out professional indemnity cover if an insurance or reinsurance undertaking on whose
behalf it is acting, or for which it is empowered to act, has provided this guarantee.

The proposal is currently being discussed in Parliament and the Council. Accordingly, the Commission is
unable to inform the Honourable Member which bodies Germany will authorise to provide the training
required for insurance brokers once the Directive has entered into force.

(1) OJ L 19, 28.1.1992.
(2) OJ C 29 E, 30.1.2001.

(2002/C 160 E/056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2958/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: List of judgements against Turkey by the European Court of Human Rights

In reply to my question H-727/2001 (1) to the Council concerning the ruling of the European Court of
Human Rights (ECHR) against Turkey for its continued detention of Leyla Zana and three other Members
of Parliament, the President of the Council said that ‘the Council does not have a list of the rulings of the
European Court of Human Rights which Turkey may have failed to observe’. Given that within the
partnership between the European Union and Turkey and the framework of enhanced political dialogue
there is an expectation that the decisions of the ECHR will be observed, as Parliament has also requested,
can the Commission make public a list of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights which
Turkey is not observing and transmit it to the Council of Ministers?

(1) Oral reply of 3.10.2001.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Competence to supervise the observance of the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights is
vested in the competent organs of the Council of Europe, in particular, the Committee of Ministers of the
Organisation.

According to available information, the Committee of Ministers presently supervises the execution of some
230 cases against Turkey.

Only in one case, the Loizidou case, has the Committee of Ministers clearly and repeatedly declared that
Turkey refused to comply with the ruling of the European Court. In a number of other cases, the
Committee of Ministers has, however, expressed dissatisfaction with the slowness of execution and/or the
manner in which execution has been carried out. This is mainly linked with the absence of means in
Turkish law to erase the consequences of convictions having been found by the European Court to violate
the right to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights).

C 160 E/52

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

On a general level, the Committee of Ministers has acknowledged, on 12 September 2001 in a reply to
members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, that significant progress had been
achieved in certain areas concerned by the judgements of the European Court. However, the Committee
noted that certain specific individual and/or general measures had not yet been adopted. The Committee
recalled the importance and the urgency of such measures, particularly in view of the seriousness of the
violations found and the time elapsed since the judgements concerned were delivered.

The Commission expects Turkey to fully respect its undertakings under the European Convention of
Human Rights and will continue to follow all developments related to the execution by Turkey of the
rulings of the European Court.

(2002/C 160 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2967/01

by Arlene McCarthy (PSE) to the Commission

(18 October 2001)

Subject: UEFA Champions League commercial contracts inventigation and implications for the FA Premier

League

Does the Commission consider that there are similarities between issues raised by the UEFA Champions
League commercial contract arrangements and those of the FA Premier League, in particular regarding the
public interest?

Will the Commission suspend its examination of the FA Premier League pending the outcome of its
examination of the UEFA Champions League?

If the FA Premier League is obliged to notify the Commission of its commercial agreements and contracts,
what would be the likely time-scale for this examination?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 November 2001)

There are clearly both similarities and differences between the two arrangements from a competition law
point of view. The principal similarity is that they both concern the joint selling of rights to broadcast
football matches on an exclusive basis. However, there are a number of important differences in the way
those rights are packaged up for sale to individual broadcasters.

So far as the public interest is concerned, the Commission wishes to ensure that these very important
rights are not sold in a way which harms competition on broadcasting markets and which, as a
consequence, harms viewers. This goal is the same in both cases.

In this regard, Premier League matches are of particular importance on the United Kingdom (UK)
broadcasting markets: if there are any anti-competitive aspects to the way in which the broadcasting rights
are sold, their effects would be especially harmful.

The Commission’s examination of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) Champions’ League
case is at a fairly advanced stage. Its preliminary analysis in the form of a statement of objections was sent
to UEFA in July 2001 and the Commission is waiting for UEFA’s response.
In the meantime, the
Commission is proceeding with an in-depth factual examination of the broadcasting arrangements of the
Football Associations Premier League (FAPL) and has been in contact with the FAPL and third parties to
this end.

The FAPL has not yet notified its broadcasting arrangements to the Commission. This does not prevent the
Commission from examining the case on its own initiative and such an examination is underway. The
duration is likely to depend on the degree of co-operation the Commission receives and the extent of third
party interest and comment. The Commission is mindful that if action needs to be taken it should be taken
as quickly as possible.