WRITTEN QUESTION E-3460/01 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The legality of provisions contained within the Directive on insider trading and market manipulation.
Date: 2001-12-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: breach of trust, dissemination of information, fraud, freedom of communication, insider trading, public contract, right to information

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/5

their right to self-determination. While the joint communiqué issued after the ministerial meeting does
express a wish for the voice of Gibraltar to be heard, it says nothing about the exercise of this right.

Gibraltar is now recognised as a colonial territory by the United Nations. The question was raised again on
10 October before the fourth (decolonisation) committee.

Can the European Union accept within its ranks a colonial territory in defiance of the wishes of peoples,
the only legitimate holders of sovereignty?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2002)

Article 299(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community states that ‘the provisions of this Treaty
shall apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible.’

On that basis, Gibraltar, one of Her Majesty’s dominions that is not part of the United Kingdom but for
whose external relations the United Kingdom is responsible insofar as it is a dependent territory, is part of
the European Union, subject though to a number of exemptions under the 1972 Act of Accession of the
United Kingdom to the Community.

The dispute over Gibraltar between the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Spain has not been without
untoward effects on the implementation of certain Community policies. Under these circumstances, the
Commission can but welcome the resumption of talks between these two Member States and hope that
they will be concluded to the satisfaction of all concerned.

However, since there are matters of national sovereignty, the Community institutions have no power
whatsoever to interfere in the organisation and conduct of these talks between two Member States.

(2002/C 277 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3460/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 December 2001)

Subject: The legality of provisions contained within the Directive on insider

trading and market

manipulation

Article 1(2)(b) of the Commission’s proposal for a Directive on insider dealing and market manipulation
(market abuse) (1) states that
the Directive ‘Market Manipulation’ shall mean
‘Dissemination of information through the media, including the Internet, or by any other means, which
gives, or is likely to give false or misleading signals as to the supply, demand or price of financial
instruments, including the dissemination of rumours and false or misleading news’.

for the purposes of

The importance of protection the public from bad advice notwithstanding, does the Commission now
accept that the failure to distinguish in the Directive between deliberate attempts to manipulate markets
for personal gain and not the reporting of information in good faith would make enactment of the
Directive in its present form not only oppressive but inconsistent with the provisions in the European
Convention of Human Rights dealing with freedom of expression and the obligations of Member States to
uphold the Convention as expressed in Article 6 of The Consolidated Treaty on European Union?

(1) OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001, p. 265.

C 277 E/6

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Describing professional journalistic behaviour (‘reporting of information in good faith’), the Honourable
Member mentions the respective article of the proposed Directive, which is complemented by recital 24
referring to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Considering these elements the
intention of the Commission is of course not to restraint the freedom of expression or to put unnecessary
burdens on bona fide journalistic work. Moreover the Commission does not believe this could be the
effect. Therefore, the Commission considers the current text does not endanger any person acting for
proper journalistic purposes.

journalists,

the proposed Directive follows the principle of equal
Considering private behaviour of
treatment that underlies all legislation. The general prohibitions in the proposal should be applicable to
everyone, whatever the profession of the person involved. If retail investors for example have to fully
respect the prohibitions, even though they may be acting for the first time on a financial market, then it is
difficult to see why other people working in a professional capacity on the same markets, or giving advice
to other market participants should be treated any differently.

The Commission does not see any inconsistency in the provisions of the proposed Directive with those of
the European Convention of Human Rights dealing with the freedom of expression and the obligations of
Member States to uphold the Convention as expressed in Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union.

The Commission’s intention, in conformity with the subsidiarity principle, is to leave it up to the Member
States whether, or not, to apply any specific provisions to journalists. Since the Directive is addressed to
Member States and since all Member States have signed the European Convention on Human Rights, its
transposition into national law will have to fully respect the Human Rights obligations.

(2002/C 277 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3497/01

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(7 January 2002)

Subject: EU cooperation with countries which do not cooperate with the FATF (Financial Action Task

Force on Money Laundering, established within the OECD)

The European Commission is a member of the FATF (Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering,
established within the OECD), and Europol has observer status. On 7 December 2001 the FATF published
an updated list of non-cooperative countries and territories. The following countries have critical
deficiencies: Egypt, Guatemala, Hungary,
Indonesia, Burma and Nigeria. The FATF has called on its
members to request their financial institutions to give special attention to businesses and transactions with
persons, including companies and financial institutions, in these countries or territories.

Can the Commission answer the following:

B Does this list include countries with which the EU has cooperation relations? If so, which countries

and what type of cooperation?

B Does this list include countries which, in any way, whether directly or via a third party, are in receipt
of funds from the Union budget? If so, have specific checks been carried out, by whom and what was
the outcome?

B What action has the Commission taken in response to the FATF’s requests, and what have been the

results?