WRITTEN QUESTION E-3848/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Taking measures in advance to avoid accusations of partiality in the use of public funding in connection with referendums in the applicant countries on accession to the EU.
Date: 2003-01-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accession to the European Union, election campaign, election financing, financial aid, organisation of elections, referendum

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/53

internal market. To this end, the Directive lays down measures which have as their first priority preventing
the production of packaging waste and have as additional fundamental aims reusing packaging, recycling
and other means of recovering packaging waste, hence reducing the final disposal of such waste.

During 2002, Denmark notified to the Commission pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC of the Parliament and
of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of
technical standards and regulations (1) national draft legislation concerning deposits on and collection of
packaging for beer and certain soft drinks (2). The national legislation in question was examined by the
Commission in relation to the requirements of the EC Treaty as well as secondary legislation, including
Directive 94/62/EC. An examination of the notified draft legislative text and the information sent by the
Danish authorities did not allow the Commission to conclude that
the
provisions of the EC Treaty regarding the free movement of goods nor of Directive 94/62/EC. However,
the Commission considered that once the system has been put in place, it will have to be ensured that it
does not create any trade barriers which show themselves disproportionate to the desired objective and
that it would be appropriate to monitor the practical operation of the system in order to ensure
compliance with the above-mentioned Community legislation.

there was infringement of

Thus far no information has been made available to the Commission which would demonstrate that
infringements exist as a result of the Danish legislation concerning deposits on and the collection of
packaging for beer and certain soft drinks. The new information provided by the Honourable Member has
been examined by the Commission. The situations described regarding registration procedures, declarations
of sales and labelling do not, on the basis of the available information, constitute as such an infringement
of the provisions in the EC Treaty on the free movement of goods or of Directive 94/62/EC. In order to
assess whether any infringement exists in this case, further evidence would be necessary. If information
was submitted that could prove an infringement of Community law, the Commission may open and
investigate an own-initiative case and if necessary decide to initiate infringement proceedings under
Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
(2) More information about the Danish notification is available at the Commission web site:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/tris/pisa/app/search/index.cfm?fuseaction=pisa_notif_overview&iYear=2002
&inum=98&lang=EN&sNLang=EN.

(2003/C 268 E/056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3848/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Taking measures in advance to avoid accusations of partiality in the use of public funding in

connection with referendums in the applicant countries on accession to the EU

1.
Are referendums to be held in all ten of the applicant countries which are scheduled to join the EU
on 1 May 2004 to ascertain whether the electorate accepts or rejects accession, or are there exceptions? In
which States where the government intends to accede is no referendum planned?

2. Who is responsible for financing these referendums and who distributes any grants to pay for
information or propaganda between the pro- and anti-accession camps?

3. What is being done to avert the risk that any businesses which are interested parties or any funds to
which businesses make contributions may be given the opportunity to spend large sums on propaganda
for a referendum result which they consider to be in their own interests?

4.
Is the former member of the Estonian Parliament Ivar Raig right to say that 99,9 % of the funding
which his country receives from the Commission to organise a referendum is going to the ‘Yes to the EU’
camp and 0,1 % to the ‘No to the EU’ camp? What are the criteria for allocating any referendum-connected
EU funding to beneficiaries?

C 268 E/54

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

Does the Commission agree that substantial and one-sidedly biased financing from public or business
5.
sources for those who advocate accession could give rise to the suspicion or even the accusation that the
electorate has been persuaded to vote in favour only by a costly propaganda bombardment?

6. What will the Commission do to avert the possibility that opinion polls in some of the new Member
States before and after the referendum may find a majority against accession, despite the fact that at the
time of the referendum itself a majority is in favour?

7. Will the Commission take measures to ensure that any funding for the public representation of
conflicting points of view is divided equally between advocates and opponents, so that the results of
referendums cannot subsequently become grounds for a constant political battle, accusations of violation
of the right of self-determination of peoples or criticisms of the credibility of a democratic system?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2003)

The Commission understands that referenda are planned in nine of the ten Candidate Countries due to
ratify the Accession Treaty that will be signed in Athens on 16 April 2003.

In the case of Cyprus, a referendum is foreseen only in case the ongoing discussions on the basis of the
proposals put forward by the Secretary General of the United Nations result in a political settlement.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 49 of the Treaty on the European Union, the Accession Treaty
‘shall be submitted for ratification to all the contracting States in accordance with their respective
constitutional requirements.’ The responsibility for organising a referendum lies with the relevant
authorities in each Candidate Country concerned. The Commission does not fund, nor is otherwise
involved with, the organisation of the referenda or the campaign associated with it in any Candidate
Country.

The Commission operates a communication strategy for enlargement in all Member States and Candidate
Countries. The strategy is largely decentralised and is managed through the Commission’s Delegations/
Representation Offices. In Estonia the Communication Strategy is financed by the PHARE budget and
implemented by the Delegation of the Commission. The Honourable Member will find details of the
current implementation of the communication strategy in the regular updates that are available on the web
site of the Commission at http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/communication/index.htm.

The Estonian Government received through the PHARE 2001 budget EUR 300 000 for European Union
information activities. The funds are used for providing objective information about the European Union.

Recently the Estonian Government,
in partnership with the Open Estonia Foundation, announced a
separate competition for civil society organisations aiming to provide Union information, including in the
context of the referendum campaign. The competition has a total budget of 2,1 million Estonian kroons,
funded by the State budget and the Soros Foundation. The Commission understands that half of that sum
will be used for funding information projects and the other half to fund referendum campaign projects.
This will channel about 500 000 Estonian kroons to those campaigning against accession, and a similar
amount to those in favour. Further information is available on the web site of the Government European
Information Secretariat at http://www.elis.ee/.

The Honourable Member would not expect
the Commission to interfere in the domestic political
arrangements of a future Member State in respect of the funding of their political campaigns, in the same
way as the Commission plays no such role in exiting Member States.