WRITTEN QUESTION P-2818/02 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Market abuse directive and journalists.
Date: 2002-10-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: approximation of laws, communications profession, dissemination of information, financial legislation, financial market, insider trading, investment promotion, securities

C 161 E/38

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Does it consider, in view of the information available to date, that specific scientific research should be
carried out on the possible health consequences for those engaged in occupations entailing frequent
contact with these coins?

What measures is the Commission considering taking to reassure public opinion, in particular the sections
of the population most affected?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 54.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2002)

This conclusion drawn by the authors of the study in question is misleading, as the results were generated
by sticking EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins to the skin of patients with a known nickel allergy for 48-72 hours.
After this period, they showed an allergic reaction. As these conditions clearly do not reflect the normal
use of the euro coins, the Commission does not see the need to revise its opinion concerning the use of
nickel in euro coins. The Commission still holds the view that the normal use of euro coins does not
represent a risk for European citizens.

The Commission will
particular area; however it does not intend to conduct additional scientific research.

follow-up all new scientific findings and technological developments in this

The introduction of the euro coins reduced the share of coins in circulation containing nickel from 75 % to
14 %. The Commission is not aware of any particular cases of patients suffering from nickel allergy which
can be traced back to the handling or use of EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins. Additionally, there is no scientific
evidence of a recent increase in nickel allergies among European citizens.

These conclusions were confirmed by a recent independent study, which showed that the amount of nickel
released from the 1- and 2 euro coins is significantly lower than from the national coins used prior to the
introduction of the euro.

(2003/C 161 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2818/02

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 October 2002)

Subject: Market abuse directive and journalists

1.
Could the Commission state whether it believes that journalists will be covered by Article 6(5) of the
market abuse directive (as set out in the latest common position from the Council (cid:1) procedure 2001/
0118(COD))?

Can the Commission confirm whether this article is confined to the research, analysis and output of

2.
financial institutions and will not be used to regulate financial or other journalists?

If

3.
0118(COD)) does or should cover journalists:

the Commission is of

the view that Article 6(5)

(as contained in Council position 2001/

(a) Can the Commission comment on whether the provision relating to journalists in Article 1(c) (as
contained in Council position (cid:1) 2001/0118(COD)) has any impact on Article 6(5) and if so can the
Commission state what that that impact will be?

(b) Does the Commission believe that

journalists to be covered by CESR
implementing measures under Article 6(10) (as contained on Council position (cid:1) 2001/0118(COD))?

is appropriate for

it

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/39

(c) Does the Commission foresee any problems if securities regulators start to cut across the remit of

existing specialist institutions and authorities which currently regulate journalists?

(d) Does the Commission accept that a range of methods of managing conflicts of interest can be useful
and that disclosure is just one of a number of different available methods for protecting investors
against harm arising from such conflicts?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2002)

1.
The text of the Common Position was unanimously agreed by Member States. It has integrated most
of Parliament’s amendments from First Reading in March 2002, in particular those with regard to the
situation of journalists.

The text of Article 6(5) is clear: it is general in purpose (cid:1) therefore not targeted only at some professions.
The Article covers any persons recommending or suggesting investment strategy, whatever means they
use.

In practice, this will not include financial journalists when they only write any general information about
issuers. However, it will include financial journalists when they recommend to purchase or sell securities.
There is no reason to exempt a particular category of persons because what is covered by this provision
for
covers behaviour. Such a provision is crucial
restoring public confidence into European financial markets.

for increasing market transparency and, therefore,

2.
As mentioned above, Article 6(5) covers persons recommending or suggesting an investment strategy.
Article 6(5) does not contain provisions regulating journalists or financial journalists in general. It only
covers a particular type of behaviour which, sometimes, can apply to certain financial journalists.

As the text of Article 6(5) and Recital 22 state clearly, the purpose is to get appropriate regulation in place
to ensure compliance with the requirements. Appropriate regulation can be self regulation, as explicitly
stated by Recital 22.

3.

Article 1 contains the definitions for the Market Abuse Directive (at the stage of a second
(a)
reading in the Parliament). In particular, Article 1(2)c contains the definition of what constitutes
market manipulation in the form of dissemination of false information. This definition includes
specific protection for journalists acting in their professional capacity. The definition of Article 1(2)c,
as all the other definitions of Article 1, applies to the Market Abuse Directive as a whole.

(b) The Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR) has yet to give to the Commission a
technical (not legal) advice on the possible content of implementing measures (the agreed deadline was
end-year 2002). The final proposal for a legal text on implementing measures will be prepared by the
Commission, which will be responsible vis-à-vis the Parliament and Member States. The Commission
will clearly appraise the technical advice forwarded by CESR.

Moreover, at this stage, no decision has been taken by CESR on the content of its final advice. CESR
has only produced a consultative paper in order to get opinions from all categories of market
participants. CESR will now have to examine these expressed opinions before delivering its final advice
to the Commission.

(c) The Market Abuse Directive does not cover journalists in general, but only the few producing or
disseminating investment recommendations. For those few journalists, Article 1(2)c requires that ‘the
rules governing their profession’ have to be taken into account. This Article, as well as Article 6(5) and
Recital 22 make clear that neither existing rules nor existing specialist institutions or authorities
currently regulating journalists are threatened by the Market Abuse Directive. On the contrary, the text
of
including self
regulation. With regard to the work of CESR in its role as advisor on implementing measures, see
answer to question 2b above.

the Directive maintains all existing and various ways to regulate journalists,

C 161 E/40

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

(d) The Commission believes that a range of methods of managing conflicts of interest can always be
useful in order to prevent from market abuse. Recent developments and events on financial markets
both in the United States and in Europe have, however, proved that transparency is crucial for the
integrity and smooth functioning of financial markets. Transparency certainly has a key role for
restoring public confidence into those markets.

(2003/C 161 E/042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2822/02

by Angelika Niebler (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Application form for the EU Youth action programme

(8 October 2002)

The aim of the EU Youth action programme is to promote European cooperation in the youth field.

Is the Commission aware that the application forms for this action programme containing the

1.
explanatory notes for Action 1 (cid:1) youth encounters (cid:1) are over 40 pages long?

2
Does it share the view that such a lengthy document represents a disproportionate level of
bureaucracy and needlessly hampers the promotion of youth encounters since potential applicants are
deterred by it from the outset?

3. What action does it intend to take to produce shorter and more user-friendly application forms in
future?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

The Youth Community action programme is managed by National Agencies in the 30 participating
countries. The Commission provides guidelines and monitors the general
the
programme:
looks after the image of the programme and is
responsible for follow-up and evaluation.

it sets the priorities, targets and criteria,

implementation of

As far as the criteria, rules and procedures governing selection are concerned,
in the context of this
decentralised implementation the Commission has drawn up a User’s Guide and standard grant application
forms for each of the five programme actions, which are available on the website of the Directorate-
General for Education and Culture. The National Agencies may, to a degree, adapt these guidelines to the
national circumstances of implementation.

As far as youth exchanges are concerned (Action 1), the standard application form for 2002 recommended
by the Commission is thirteen pages long (including a one-page overview of the funding rules). The forms
for the other programme actions are, on average, thirteen pages for the European Voluntary Service
(Action 2), nine pages for Youth Initiatives (Action 3) and fifteen pages for Support Measures (Action 5).

Mindful of the need to strike the right balance between the capacities of potential Youth programme
beneficiaries and the amount of information necessary to ensure sound financial management of projects
cofinanced with Community funds, the Commission went to considerable lengths to simplify the User’s
Guide and the standard application forms when updating them in 2002. For example, a lump-sum system
has generally been applied to all youth activities, thus simplifying the budgetary parts of the application
forms.

As part of the updating of the forms for 2003, the Commission is continuing its efforts to make the forms
simpler and more user-friendly while respecting the principles of sound financial management.