WRITTEN QUESTION E-0888/02 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Il Forteto.
Date: 2002-04-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Court of Human Rights, Tuscany, agricultural cooperative, enforcement of ruling, juvenile delinquency, sexual violence, social problem, young person

C 277 E/100

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

Even under the directives now in force, the Member States should have liberalised a third of their
electricity and gas markets. Why has the Commission not carried out its threats to institute proceedings
against France before the Court of Justice, given that France has failed to implement the directives?

The Commission oversees competition in the EU area. Why has it not prevented the French energy
monopoly EDF from buying energy companies in neighbouring countries, transactions which EDF has
managed to finance because it makes profits on the scale of its monopoly status?

What steps will the Commission take to make France join the common endeavours?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Regular monitoring of the development of the energy market in the Union is one of the Commission’s
tasks.

France has transposed Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December
1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (1).

France has not, on the other hand, transposed Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas (2) and the
Commission has initiated proceedings before the Court of Justice for France’s failure to transpose this
Directive.

The Commission examines the purchasing of companies very carefully pursuant to Council Regulation
(EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (3). In
order to maintain and foster competition, substantial conditions were imposed on Electricité de France
(EDF) when it bought companies abroad.

In addition, the decision, taken at the Barcelona European Council (15 and 16 March 2002), that all non-
household consumers should have freedom of choice of supplier as of 2004 will enable a more
competitive environment to be created soon.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.
(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
(3) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, republished in OJ L 257, 21.9.1990.

(2002/C 277 E/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0888/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2002)

Subject: Il Forteto

Il Forteto is an agricultural cooperative in Tuscany which receives public funding of between LIT 65 000
and 300 000 a day for looking after young people in care.

The leaders of the Il Forteto community include two people who were convicted in 1985 of the sexual
abuse and ill-treatment of minors.

Following the conviction by the Florence Court of Appeal in 1985, the Youth Court still relies on Il
Forteto despite a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights against Italy for placing two children of
Italian immigrants in Belgium with the Il Forteto community and imposing a fine of LIT 200 million and
awarding damages for moral injury.

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/101

Can the Commission:

A verify the actions of the Italian authorities and their compliance with the judgment requiring the
immediate removal of all minors from care facilities run by Il Forteto and for Il Forteto to be struck
off the list of centres used by the Child Protection Agency?

A set up a committee of inquiry to ascertain the real reasons for opposition to enforcement of the

judgment?

A sponsor an EU inquiry into the 14 000 Italian children in care placed in communities financed with

public funds, the cost of which may exceed € 600 a day in Italy?

A introduce appropriate measures to make legal recognition of care facilities for minors conditional
upon irrefutable evidence that they satisfy the necessary moral standards and standards of probity?

Reply given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honorable Member for her question but draws her attention to the fact that as
regards her first two requests, concerning Italy’s compliance with the judgment of the European Court of
Human Rights of 13 July 2000 (Scozzari and Giunta against Italy), the Commission has no power to act in
the matter. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is the body responsible for supervising
the execution of judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights in accordance with Article 46
of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Similarly, the Commission does not believe that, on the basis of the Treaties, it has the power to conduct
an investigation such as that wished for by the Honorable Member.

(2002/C 277 E/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0895/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2002)

Subject: Staffing at customs authorities in the European Union

Customs is of particular interest to the European Union: a large proportion of customs receipts benefits the
European Union budget. In some Member States, however, customs officers complain time and time again
about customs authorities’ staff shortages.

Are there EU standards for the number of control bodies necessary for controlling a particular section of a
border?

How many customs officers are currently employed in Austria, and how many would be necessary for the
best possible supervision of the EU’s external borders in Austria?

What is the customs staffing situation in other EU Member States? Which member States have too few
customs staff, and how many staff are needed in relation to the number of customs officers actually
employed in the individual Member States?

How high would the Commission put the European Union’s customs revenue losses resulting from
customs authorities’ staff shortages?