WRITTEN QUESTION E-3479/02 by Philippe Herzog (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Extension of the Lamfalussy process and financial supervision.
Date: 2002-12-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union, United States, cooperation policy, economic integration, financial market, monetary integration, securities, single market

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/59

The assessment of financial support to professional sports clubs will vary depending on the characteristics.
It might, for example, be considered not to be aid for an economic activity, as in the case of compensation
for the education of young players (2). Under certain strict conditions, financial support for stadiums may
also be considered as funding for infrastructure and not constitute aid.

Accordingly, the Commission cannot state in general terms whether state aid, within the meaning of
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, has been granted to Belgian professional sports clubs. It needs to be assessed
on a case by case basis whether forms of public support constitute State aid and whether they are
compatible with the EC Treaty.

(1) Cases C-415/93, Bosman and C-41/90, Höfner.
(2) Commission Decision N 118/2000, France, state aid for professional sports clubs (cid:1) OJ C 333, 28.11.2001.

(2003/C 242 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3454/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: The establishment of a European Public Prosecutor

(27 November 2002)

How much money does the Commission estimate establishing a European Public Prosecutor will cost?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

The establishment of a European Financial Prosecutor has been recently addressed in the Green Paper on
protection of the financial
law and the establishment of a
European Financial Prosecutor (1). This paper is only a consultative document to be used as a basis for an
open discussion.

interests of the Community by criminal

The Green Paper presents various options for the establishment of a European Financial Prosecutor, which
can be combined in many ways. Each combination of choices would have a different financial impact. As a
consequence and in the absence of a legal basis enshrined in the EC Treaty, full preparatory legislative
work, including a financial impact assessment, is not possible at this stage.

One of the proposals made in the Green Paper is the organisation of the European Financial Prosecutor on
a decentralised basis. In such a case, the European Financial Prosecutor’s own resources would be small.

The Green Paper also proposes that the European Financial Prosecutor have his/her own budget, charged
to the general budget of the Communities. This budget would be managed on a totally independent basis
by the European Financial Prosecutor in accordance with the rules of the EC Treaty and the financial
legislation implementing them.

Finally, the Commission underlines that the creation of the European Financial Prosecutor is in the
interests of the European taxpayer, as the aim is to protect EU finances.

(1) COM(2001) 715 final.

(2003/C 242 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3479/02

by Philippe Herzog (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Extension of the Lamfalussy process and financial supervision

In the debate on extension of the Lamfalussy process and financial supervision at the plenary sitting in
Strasbourg on 20 November 2002, the Commissioner responsible for the single market expressed his
intention of replying to each of the speakers. But he made one exception, omitting to answer the author of

C 242 E/60

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

this question, who would like to know whether or not the omission was deliberate and now requests an
answer to a concern expressed in his speech. He had expressed concern at the Union’s tendency to
converge in the direction of the United States rules, in the prospect of an integrated transatlantic financial
market, without the European Parliament ever having debated any such objective.

the
According to the preparatory documents for the TABD meeting of 6 and 8 November 2002,
Commissioner for the internal market apparently stated on 29 May 2002,
in a consultation with the
President of the SEC, that he intended ‘to provide the transatlantic world with one liquid and integrated
financial market’.

My question to the Commission is twofold:

1. Does this statement correspond to a mandate from the Council? Or from the Commission? Or is it a

personal position? Has it been discussed, and if so, in what forum?

2. How does the Commissioner or the Commission justify this position?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2003)

The Member of the Commission in charge of the Internal Market did indeed declare after his meeting with
the former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) his long term objective to work
towards providing ‘the world with one liquid and integrated financial market’ and has made a number of
similar public statements both before and since, most recently in a speech given on his behalf on
10 December 2002.

The reason why he called for such an integrated financial market is threefold.

Recent studies have pointed to the huge economic and social benefits to all sides from European financial
market integration and the removal of regulatory barriers. The same should be true for transatlantic market
integration.

European investors, companies and consumers are being punished by the status quo. The Lamfalussy
Report listed external trade barriers, and in particular barriers in the United States’ market (e.g. no access
for trading screens) as one of the major factors slowing European market integration. In contrast, European
markets are relatively open to United States companies and exchanges. These barriers are unacceptable and
need to be addressed in the interests of companies and investors on both sides.

Most importantly, recent events have highlighted how actions in one country can and do have direct
effects on companies in other countries. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the United States is a classic example
of this.

The Commissioner believes that the solution to these issues is firm and effective upstream co-operation
between authorities on both sides of the Atlantic. The aim should be mutual convergence around common
principles whenever practicable, whilst recognising and respecting the right of each side to use different
means of regulation. Contrary to what the Honourable Member’s question suggests, this does not imply the
adoption of United States rules. As part of this, the European Union-United States Positive Economic
Agenda launched by Presidents Prodi and Bush in May 2002 called for a Financial Markets Dialogue on
regulatory matters. Commission officials met with United States authorities on a number of occasions in
2002 and expect to have regular meetings in 2003 with a view to resolving these issues.

As such, while the statements referred to by the Honourable Member reflect the personal point of view of
the Commissioner, they are totally consistent with European Union policy and Council mandates.

The Commission will continue to inform the Parliament of any progress made in this regard.