WRITTEN QUESTION E-0050/03 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Byrne-FIA correspondence on tobacco advertising.
Date: 2003-01-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: advertising, drafting of EU law, interest group, operation of the Institutions, professional sport, smoking, sponsorship, sports body, tobacco industry

C 222 E/142

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

for the first time in Brussels on 11 November 2002. An EU Action Plan on Justice and Home Affairs was
adopted jointly by the EU and Ukraine in December 2001. Readmission and migration were among the
priorities established by the Ministers.

The plan sets out, inter alia, the following cooperation objectives:

(cid:1) Rendering expert legal assistance to the Ukrainian authorities in drafting or amending its current

legislation on foreigners, asylum, immigration and refugees;

(cid:1) Supporting the efficient management of migration flows, also by rendering consultative, financial and
expert assistance in the establishment of the State Migration Service of Ukraine and promotion of its
activities, in particular to increase the professional level of relevant staff through the study of foreign
experience and internships in relevant services of EU countries dealing with modern migration policy;

(cid:1) Assessing the scale of illegal migration via Ukraine and monitoring of migratory movements and
examination of possible participation of Ukraine in a system of early prevention of illegal migration;

(cid:1) Improving cooperation regarding the readmission of own nationals, persons without nationality and
third country nationals, with a view to concluding a readmission agreement between Ukraine and the
European Community. The EU also encourages all countries in the region to conclude readmission
agreements between themselves.

A scoreboard set up in consultation with Ukraine makes it possible to monitor the implementation of
measures aimed at achieving these objectives.

Under the TACIS Regional Cooperation Programme, Belarus receives funding for the justice and home
affairs sector. Projects to strengthen asylum and border management and to combat drug trafficking and
trafficking in women are being implemented. These initiatives aim to support the creation of the European
Union’s area of freedom, security and justice (cid:1) the territory of Belarus is used by criminal organisations
active in drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings and smuggling of illegal migrants (cid:1) by reinforcing
the future EU’s external borders. Since the EU is already cooperating very closely with Ukraine on justice
and home affairs issues, criminal organisations will most probably circumvent Ukraine by using Belarus’
territory more intensively, with negative consequences
the EU, unless support measures are
implemented. All such projects are therefore clearly in the interests of the EU.

for

The Council is convinced that management of migration questions can be improved and that appropriate
measures can be taken in the areas of border management, readmission and visas, with a view to
preventing the territories of Ukraine and Belarus from being used increasingly for the purposes of illegal
immigration and as transit countries for illegal immigrants intending to enter the European Union.

(2003/C 222 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0050/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Byrne-FIA correspondence on tobacco advertising

A copy of a letter dated 13 December 2002 from Max Mosley, President of the International Automobile
Federation, FIA, to David Byrne, the European Commissioner with responsibility for consumer affairs,
shows Mosley putting forward the view that by fixing the introduction of the European ban on tobacco
advertising for 31 July 2005 Byrne failed to take account of motorsport sponsorship considerations. The
1998 directive annulled by the European Court of Justice set 1 October 2006 as the date on which that
ban would come into force. Mosley draws attention to motorsport’s sponsorship needs and hints that
Formula 1 may turn its back on Europe for a considerable period of time. Adopting an aggressive tone at
times, Mosley suggests that Commissioner Byrne bears full, personal responsibility for this state of affairs.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/143

It would appear from Mosley’s letter that intensive talks were held between the FIA and the European
Commission, and Commissioner Byrne in particular, concerning the date on which the ban would be
introduced. Amongst other things, Mosley writes that
in a letter of December 2001 he informed
Commissioner Byrne of the advice given to the racing teams and voiced the FIA’s concern that the earlier
date might create problems in connection with the worldwide ban due to come into force in 2006.
According to Mosley, the Commissioner replied that the Commission was aware of the problem and that
the Council and Parliament had still to give their opinions on the date in question. Likewise according to
Mosley, in the course of discussions with the Commissioner and his staff the FIA was encouraged to lobby
Parliament with a view to securing an amendment deferring the date of entry into force to 2006.

Mosley concludes by pointing out
the
introduction of a worldwide ban on tobacco advertising, given that non-EU countries will exploit the
confusion by proposing events not subject to any sponsorship restrictions. Mosley hopes that the WHO
Convention will succeed in establishing the level playing field urgently needed at world level.

the current European approach may serve to prevent

that

Can the Commission state whether Mosley’s version of the facts is accurate? Did Commissioner Byrne or
his staff in fact urge the FIA to lobby Parliament and the Council?

What standpoint is the European Commission adopting on this matter in the WHO?

What steps has the Commission now taken in order to protect the health of European citizens not only by
means of a ban on tobacco advertising, but also through lower subsidies for tobacco growing?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2003)

On several occasions, Mr Mosley, the President of the International Automobile Federation (FIA), expressed
to the Member of the Commission responsible for Health and Consumer Protection and to his staff his
concern about the implementation date for the proposed Directive on the approximation of the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship
of tobacco products (1).

On these occasions, the FIA was informed that this matter was subject to discussion within the Council
and the Parliament as a normal part of the co-decision procedure.

The report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market of the Parliament, which was
included two amendments in the sense
presented and voted in the Plenary on 20 November 2002,
apparently supported by the FIA. The Member of the Commission responsible for Health and Consumer
Protection had indicated to the European Parliament that the Commission would be willing to accept such
amendments. Neither of these were adopted by the Parliament.

Within the context of the negotiations of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework Convention
on Tobacco Control, many countries have expressed very strongly their commitment regarding the
prohibition of tobacco advertising and sponsorship. The Commission shares this view and will make all
the efforts to ensure that the final text reflects the existing Community legislation in this area. The fact that
the Community decided to ban the sponsorship of international events by tobacco companies clearly
shows that the Community is seriously engaged in the fight against tobacco consumption, which will
hopefully strengthen other countries determination to do the same.

Regarding tobacco subsidies, the Commission stressed the need to ‘adapt the [Community’s] tobacco
regime at the end of its review in 2002 so as to allow for the phasing out of tobacco subsidies while
putting in place measures to develop alternative sources of income and economic activity for tobacco
workers and growers and decide on an early date accordingly’ in its Communication ‘A Sustainable Europe
for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development’ (2). The Commission

C 222 E/144

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

consequently presented to the Council and to the Parliament a proposal (3), which included an explicit
reference to the phasing out of tobacco subsidies. Both the Parliament and the Council were opposed to
the inclusion of such reference in the text.

(1) OJ C 270 E, 25.9.2001.
(2) COM(2001) 264 final.
(3) Proposal for a Council Regulation fixing the premiums and guarantee thresholds for leaf tobacco by variety group
and Member State for the 2002, 2003 and 2004 harvests and amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92,
COM(2001) 684 final.

(2003/C 222 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0053/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 January 2003)

Subject: Political conflict between the Commission and the Council as regards political and legislative

measures relating to the transport by sea of oil-based and hazardous products

In the wake of the Copenhagen European Council it is clear that a serious political conflict exists between
the Commission and the Council as regards political and legislative measures relating to the transport by
sea of oil-based products and other hazardous cargoes. According to its Communication on safety at sea
following the sinking of the oil tanker Prestige,
the Commission is intending to apply the ERIKA
legislation, even returning to the original texts which laid down much stricter rules designed to bring
safety to Community waters, strengthening the package which has already been approved by Parliament
and the Council, and heeding calls from the College of Commissioners for specific EU legislation similar to
that drawn up by the USA following the Exxon Valdez accident which occurred in Alaska in 1989. The
Council, on the other hand (as demonstrated by the Transport Council agreements concluded before the
Copenhagen European Council and ratified at Copenhagen), rejects such views and wishes EU legislation to
continue to reflect what is laid down by the IMO, a body which certain countries with interests in the
maritime sector find a more suitable forum for protecting the existing status quo, which enables oil
companies and the tangled mass of international transport groups and mafias to hold sway. This status
quo is extraordinarily damaging to the coastal countries of Europe whose nature and economy are
threatened with destruction, as the Prestige disaster off the coast of Galicia has recently demonstrated.

What action is the Commission going to take in order to resolve this political conflict? How is it going to
settle the obvious differences which exist between it and the Council? What support will it seek from the
European Parliament for the purpose of resolving this conflict through the drawing up of legislation (quite
apart from the primitive, ineffective and confused International Maritime Organisation rules) which will
ensure that the seas are safe? What action has the Commission President, Mr Prodi, taken with a view to
resolving this serious issue?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

On 3 December 2002 (1), following the sinking of the oil tanker Prestige, the Commission adopted a
communication setting out a series of new legislative measures and Community initiatives in the field of
maritime safety.

At the meeting of the Transport Council held on 6 December 2002, the Council,
in its conclusions,
broadly supported the Commission initiatives, some of which it sought to reinforce. These initiatives also
met with a favourable reception at the Copenhagen European Summit held on 13 December 2002.

The abovementioned communication provides, on the one hand, for the speeding-up of the entry into
force of the legislative measures adopted after the sinking of the ERIKA and, on the other, for the
launching of initiatives the implementation of which will need to transcend the boundaries of the 15
Member States of the European Union, thereby necessitating a debate within the International Maritime