WRITTEN QUESTION E-2368/02 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission. Pooling Open Source Software.
Date: 2002-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: administrative cooperation, business data processing, disclosure of information, patents licence, software

8.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110 E/49

(2003/C 110 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2363/02

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Follow-up question on EU preferential tariff arrangements (H-043/02)

Following on from the Commission’s answer to my question of 30 May 2002 (H-0453/02 (1)) on EU
preferential tariff arrangements, I should like to put a supplementary question. The Commission’s own
proposal on the need for immediate action against third countries, where errors and omissions outweigh
the general risks of trading with countries with preferential tariffs, implies the possibility of suspending the
preferential arrangements. The proposal also implies that the trader should be notified where there is
reasonable doubt as to how a preferential system works.

My supplementary question is therefore this: Why has the Commission opted not
to suspend the
preferential tariff as long as there is any doubt about the country from which the fish originates? Why did
the Commission choose not to warn the Danish fish importers of the Norwegian situation, when it was
aware of circumstances in Norway as early as August 2001?

(1) Written answer of 11 June 2002.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2002)

1.
referential agreements such as the EEA are based on the mutual trust and co-operation of the parties
concerned. Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement only allows for the temporary suspension of preferential
rates for specific individual exports during the period of verification of the proofs of origin covering those
exports. This is applied by Member States on a case by case basis.

2.
In August 2001 the Commission received the first indications about doubts concerning the origin of
fish exports carried out prior to that time. It immediately advised the Norwegian authorities and asked
them to ensure ‘that the determination and control of the origin status of such products be secured’ in
order to prevent situations prejudicial to EU-importers.

Given the very co-operative attitude of the Norwegian authorities and their willingness both to quickly
remedy the situation and fully investigate the past cases, the Commission cannot conclude that doubts
exist concerning the co-operation of Norway which would justify the publication of a notice to importers.
In any case, such a notice would not affect the situation which occurred in the past.

(2003/C 110 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2368/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Pooling Open Source Software

Has the Commission given formal consideration to the report published by IDA (Interchange of Data
between Administrations) called ‘Pooling Open Source Software (cid:1) an IDA feasibility study on interchange
of data between administrations (DG Enterprise)’ which recommends the ‘creation of a software clearing
house to which administrations can donate software’? Does it agree with the study’s suggestion that
‘software developed for and owned by public administrations should be issued under an open source
licence’?

What action is the Commission intending to take on this?

C 110 E/50

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

The feasibility study ‘Pooling Open Source Software’ was initiated under the IDA (Interchange of Data
between Administrations) programme to consider how the re-use of software applications developed by
and for public administrations could be improved.

IDA launched this study:

(cid:1) to explore opportunities for greater cost-efficiency in Information Technology implementations in the

European public sector;

(cid:1) to respond to the eEurope 2002 action plan’s call to promote the use of open source software in the

public sector;

(cid:1) and to assess the feasibility of a recommendation resulting from the IDA symposium on open source

in public administrations (held in Brussels in February 2001).

The contractor carrying out the study (Unisys) was asked to assess the technical, organisational, legal and
financial aspects of the sharing of software. The recommendations that have been issued are those of the
contractor. No formal position has been taken by the Commission on these recommendations. However, a
number of options for practical action are currently being considered by the Commission. Where these
concern the IDA programme, proposals have to be approved by Member States, represented in the
Telematics between Administrations Committee (TAC).

Software licences and software sharing are interrelated, and the study’s call for software owned by public
administrations to be issued under open source licences should be seen in this context. For software to be
shared among administrations, access to the source code needs to be granted (for modification purposes),
and no restrictions should apply to the distribution of the software. Both conditions are met by open
source software licences.

(2003/C 110 E/050)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2370/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is a complex agreement covering a broad range of
services, and it has a potentially significant impact on the ability of local/regional authorities to regulate
and deliver services. Given the uncertainty surrounding the potential impact of GATS on sub-national
authorities, would the European Commission state what objective assessments on the potential impact of
GATS have been undertaken?

(2003/C 110 E/051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2371/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

Given that regional/local authorities are responsible for regulating and delivering many of the services
covered by the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), will the European Commission clarify to
what extent these regional/local authorities have been consulted on the current negotiations with the
World Trade Organisation?