WRITTEN QUESTION E-2762/02 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Regulation of advertising campaigns for child-oriented festive periods.
Date: 2002-10-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: advertising, child protection, consumer policy, consumer protection, consumer society, sales promotion, self-regulation, trade regulations

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/211

As indicated in the Commission’s response to written question E-2197/02 by Mrs Van Brempt (1), the use
of devices preventing the reception and emission of GSM signals is currently forbidden in all Member
States. Community law, however, does not prevent Member States from allowing them. The national
Parliament in France, for instance, recently passed a law paving the way towards allowing the use of such
equipment in performance halls, subject to the adoption of implementation measures by the national
regulatory authority. Pending adoption of such measures, the sale of jammers remains forbidden in the
Community and the Commission has published guidance on this matter on the Commission website (2)
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/gener.htm).

The use of mobile phones, while it has clear benefits for the quality of life, also has some negative side
effects that need to be managed. Inappropriate use of mobile phones gives rise to problems and it seems
that users of such equipment do not always adopt the appropriate etiquette, for example, that one should
not call, nor be called in certain places such as performance halls. The signals from mobile telephones may
also interfere with electronic equipment. Where such equipment has critical safety functions (for example,
in aeroplanes or in hospitals), mobile phones must be kept at a safe distance.

in that respect,

the Commission considers that

the measures taken to manage these problems must be
However,
jamming might not be the appropriate solution. Prohibiting all
proportionate and,
communication would,
the technology (such as
for instance, also prevent non-problematic uses of
electronic messages, access to the Internet or emergency calls). Furthermore, it is questionable whether the
devices currently available are capable of being confined to operation in the intended areas. The
consultations of the French regulator demonstrate these difficulties.

As to whether jammers could reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields, the Commission draws the
attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that all networks and handsets should comply with the
limits recommended by the Council in its Recommendation 1999/519/EEC. The installation of jammers
does not reduce the exposure of the public to electromagnetic fields. In fact jammers add electromagnetic
energy to the environment and thus slightly increase the exposure of the public.

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 207.
(2) See the web site: http://www.art-telecom.fr/communiques/communiques/index-030502.htm.

(2003/C 52 E/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2762/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 October 2002)

Subject: Regulation of advertising campaigns for child-oriented festive periods

In his answer to Written Question E-1857/02 (1), Commissioner Bolkestein said that self-regulated
advertising campaigns at child-oriented festive periods might be dealt with at national or local level, on
condition, of course, that the principles of free movement laid down in the EC Treaty were adhered to.

At the same time, he said that the Commission was minded to protect vulnerable target groups ‘such as
children’ from the ‘negative influences’ of advertising.

1.
Can the Commission inform me whether, in its border regions, Belgium may require traders from
neighbouring Member States to comply with this self-regulatory code? For example, may traders from, say,
the Netherlands, Germany, France or Luxembourg, during the voluntarily imposed period when advertising
is prohibited, actually advertise in Belgium articles specially designed to appeal to children? If so, are not
Belgian traders then the victims of unfair competition?

On the other hand, is the Belgian Minister for Economic Affairs authorised to penalise Belgian traders
suggested in the Commission

2.
who do not comply with the self-imposed code in Belgium, as
Communication COM(2002) 289, point 29, pp. 10-11?

C 52 E/212

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Does the Commission acknowledge the usefulness of a general ruling on the prohibition of
3.
advertising aimed at children for a specific period prior to traditional child-oriented festive periods, of
whatever nature they might be? Will it, therefore, take a decision to draw up specific rules (cid:1) which go
beyond a mere voluntary code of conduct (cid:1) which take account not only of the free movement of goods
and services but also of the potential negative consequences of excessive advertising campaigns aimed at
children?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 240.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2002)

the Commission’s answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-1857/02 (1)
In view of
concerning a Belgian self-regulatory code on advertising campaigns for child-oriented festive periods, the
Honourable Member requests a more detailed opinion from the Commission on the need for specific rules
at Community level in this area.

1.
The honourable Member asks whether the Belgium authorities may require traders from neigh-
bouring Member States to comply with the self-regulatory code. If the Belgium authorities applied this
code to traders from neighbouring Member States, and if this resulted in a restriction to the freedom to
provide services, an analysis would be required as to whether the restriction resulting from the code was a
proportionate measure to protect minors. So far the Commission has no evidence that the code has been
applied to foreign traders. Furthermore, the Commission is not aware of the details of the code. At this
stage the Commission is therefore neither required, nor able to take a position on the lawfulness of
application of the code to foreign traders.

2. Whether the Belgian Minister of Economic Affairs is authorised to penalise Belgian traders who do
not comply with the self-regulatory code, the Commission is not competent to answer this question. This
is to be decided under national law.

3.
Regarding the usefulness of Community measures in this field, the Commission has no plans to
propose any such measure at the current time. As explained in the reply to the previous Written Question,
in order for the Commission to be able to justify proposing harmonisation in this field, it would first need
to identify whether differing national regulations in this area gave rise to cross-border restrictions.
Secondly, it would have to evaluate whether such identified restrictions were proportionate to the objective
of protecting minors, before coming forward with harmonisation. Finally, the Commission would wish to
reiterate that its ‘Follow-up Communication to the Green paper on Community Consumer Protection’ (2)
launches a further round of consultation on a possible framework directive on fair commercial practices.
The consultation concerns the regulation of commercial practices, including advertising, misleading and
unfair commercial practices, and the use of harassment or other undue influence. The Communication also
mentions the idea that, where a business consciously directs its activities at a specific vulnerable group of
consumers (such as children), the ‘consumer detriment’ criterion must be adjusted accordingly.

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 240.
(2) COM(2002) 289 final.

(2003/C 52 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2763/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 October 2002)

Subject: Transport of manure and the free movement of goods, services and capital

Can the Commission confirm that manure is subject to the everyday European Union rules governing the
free movement of goods, capital and services and that, as a result, public authorities and judicial bodies
may not restrict lawful deliveries of manure in a routine supplier-customer trade relationship?

May the authorities close borders for a product such as manure, particularly when the purchaser intends to
use it to improve the soil?