WRITTEN QUESTION E-0030/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Greek Public Power Corporation and construction of new electricity generation plants.
Date: 2003-01-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, consortium, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy production, energy transport, location of industry, private sector, security of supply, standardised accounting system

C 192 E/148

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

In fact, neither the European Court of Justice, nor the Commission (in its interpretative Communication)
have given a definition of yoghurt. In the Smanor judgement, the European Court of Justice determines
cases where it is necessary to modify a product name to protect consumers against the risk of confusion
between different products. In this respect, the Court noted that according to the Codex Alimentarius, the
characteristic feature of the product marketed as yoghurt is the presence of specific viable lactic acid
bacteria in abundant quantities.

The Court pointed out that there are no common or harmonised rules relating to the manufacture or the
marketing of yoghurt, with the exception of Commission Directive 93/102/EEC of 16 November 1993
amending Directive 79/112/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer (1).

In the absence of Community legislation, a Member State has the right to decide rules such as the use of
the name ‘yoghurt’ and to which product these rules shall apply.

In the framework of 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 (2),
the Commission received the draft Spanish legislation mentioned by the Honourable Member. This text
allows certain products to be marketed under the denomination of ‘Yoghurt pasteurised after fermentation’.
The Commission did not express objection against this draft Regulation. In conformity with the procedure
laid down in Directive 98/34/EC the Spanish authorities are legally authorised since 26 January 2003 to
adopt their legislation.

Notwithstanding, the Commission received several complaints concerning the Spanish legislation, based
particularly on Directive 2000/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of
foodstuffs. They are currently examining these complaints and the legal situation in the Member States as
regards the denomination of yoghurt.

(1) OJ L 291, 25.11.1993.
(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(2003/C 192 E/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0030/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Greek Public Power Corporation and construction of new electricity generation plants

In its reply to my written question P-1459/02 (1) the Commission indicated that it required the full
accounting unbundling of all integrated electricity undertakings in the EU with separate accounts being
drawn up for generation transmission and distribution activities. In reply to my subsequent oral question
(H-0794/02) (2), the Commission referred to financial difficulties facing the seven consortia of independent
private companies regarding the construction of new electricity generation plants with a total capacity of
2000 MW. It also indicates that an additional capacity of 500 to 600 MW is estimated to be required by
the year 2005 to solve the problem of security of energy supply in Greece.

Has the Greek Public Power Corporation submitted separate accounts in respect of its different

1.
activities?

2. What is the reason for the financial difficulties facing the consortia of independent private companies
and, more specifically, do these difficulties relate to the price of the fuel needed to operate the seven new
energy supply plants?

Is it possible that Greece will, over the coming years, encounter problems regarding security of
3.
energy supply given that, to date, it has not been possible to secure a capacity of 2 000 MW, let alone an
additional 500 to 600 MW?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 209.
(2) Written reply of 17.12.2002.

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/149

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2003)

The Greek Ministry of Development, by a letter dated 4 December 2002, has informed the

1.
Commission that:

(a) On 15 April 2002, the Public Power Corporation (PPC) SA submitted to the Greek Regulatory

Authority (RAE) unbundled financial accounts for its various activities in 2001.

(b) On 24 October 2002, the Greek Energy Regulator instructed PPC to resubmit the accounts with
certain clarifications and modifications. The deadline for the submission of the revised unbundled
accounts was 16 December 2002.

The Commission has requested confirmation of the delivery of these revised accounts, as well as the
reaction of the Greek Energy Regulator to the revised accounts.

The Commission is not able to provide reasons for any financial difficulties facing the consortia of
2.
independent private companies, as such information is company confidential and not available to the
Commission. However, in general it is correct that banks and financial institutions are reluctant to finance
new generation capacity unless both legal and economic stability and predictability exist, including with
respect to the price of fuel.

It is correct to state that Greece may face a shortage of electricity supply over thecoming years,

3.
unless new generating plants are in place.

In this context, the Commission has recently sought further information with respect to the progress on
the issuing of a new Law, amending the current Law 2773/1999, which will facilitate the entrance of new
independent electricity generators in the Greek energy market.

(2003/C 192 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0042/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Relocation and restructuring measures and the safeguarding of jobs

The Portuguese media reported recently (Expresso on 19 October 2002) that the Japanese group Yazaki
Saltano is seriously considering closing down its cable factories in Gaia and Ovar, which between them
employ nearly 6 000 workers, most of them young people.

According to the trade union representing electricity workers in northern Portugal, the management of the
Portuguese firms denied the report, but confirmed that staff numbers were being reduced, without
specifying an exact figure.

Unemployment in Portugal is rising every day and needs to be curbed.

Can the Commission say:

1. whether financial support has been given to the Japanese group Yazaki Saltano in Portugal or any

other European Union country;

2. what steps the Commission intends to take to safeguard employment,

in view of the countless
relocation and restructuring measures on the part of multinationals and the job losses they are causing
in countries such as Portugal?