WRITTEN QUESTION E-0270/03 by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Council. Loss of jobs on the borders with CEECs.
Date: 2003-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU action, EU employment policy, Slovenia, State aid, accession to the European Union, derogation from EU law, frontier region, labour market, redevelopment aid, socioeconomic conditions

C 222 E/176

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Using PHARE and TACIS funds, the European Commission has launched a programme in the accession
countries for copyright protection, one of the aims of which is to create a functioning system for this
purpose.

1. What is the Commission’s position on the monopoly held by the collecting societies?

In constructing a legal

2.
Commission encouraging the emergence of such monopolies?

framework for copyright protection in the accession countries,

is the

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

The monopolies held by collecting societies have, on a number of previous occasions, been subject to
Commission scrutiny. Both the Commission and the Court of Justice have considered that, in specific
cases (1), some of the collecting societies’ practices can restrict competition. At the same time, it is generally
acknowledged that the societies in question play an important role in administering copyright and related
rights, particularly because they are able to offer their members and users a ‘one-stop shop’, which
considerably facilitates access to works and other protected objects. As regards the reciprocal agreements,
these make it possible for the societies to offer a world-wide catalogue to users, provided that they are
compatible with competition law (2).

Furthermore, in view of the very strong links between competition aspects and the rules of the internal
market, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it has been studying the issue of the
management of intellectual property rights, and collective management in particular, for several years. It
considers that collective management must be fully effective within the internal market and is therefore
drafting a communication on the management of intellectual property rights. The communication will take
stock of the situation in the sector, the questions raised and possible answers.

As for the second point raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission would point out that
Article 295 of the EC Treaty stipulates that ‘this Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member
States governing the system of property ownership’. Whilst the existence of intellectual property rights
cannot be called into question, it is nonetheless the Commission’s role to ensure that the exercise and
administration of these rights do not conflict with the rules of competition and of the internal market.
Moreover, the Commission would like to make it clear that, insofar as collecting societies are needed for
the effective exercise of certain intellectual property rights and that there are very often no other legal or
de facto solutions for issuing operating licences, it considers the existence of such entities to be useful
within the Community as well as in the accession countries, provided that the activities of these entities are
well regulated by certain specific legal rules and are subject to supervision by the competent authorities,
particularly those which have been set up for this purpose and competition authorities.

(1) GEMA, Commission Decision of 2 June 1971 (cid:1) OJ L134, 10.6.1971; Tournier, Case 395/87, judgment of the
Court of Justice of 13 July 1989; Lucazeau, Cases 110/88, 241/88, 242/88, judgment of the Court of Justice of
13 July 1989.

(2) See, for example, the Commission Decision of 8 October 2002 in Case 38 014 IFPI Simulcasting, which can be

consulted on: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/decisions/38014/en.pdf.

(2003/C 222 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0270/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Council

(6 February 2003)

Subject: Loss of jobs on the borders with CEECs

The accession of the Central and Eastern European Countries, scheduled for May 2004, will inevitably
result in the loss of hundreds of jobs in the border services that have until now handled customs
operations, transport and related services.

On certain borders, such as Italy’s eastern border with Slovenia, unemployment will hit over 90 % of those
at present employed in the forwarding sector and services relating to it, and will also have a range of
knock-on effects.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/177

Added to the tangible problem of the loss of jobs and the crises likely to ensue in many families there will
be the economic damage occasioned by the loss of the skills of entire categories of worker, which will
result in the dissipation of a human and cultural heritage developed through years of work and tradition.

In the light of the above, could the Council indicate:

1. what type of measures are envisaged for categories of worker hard hit by the momentous event which

is enlargement;

2. whether it does not consider it appropriate to bring forward a proposal for a directive promoting the

retraining of all those workers who will lose their jobs on what are today’s external borders;

3. whether on the same basis a compensation scheme might be envisaged, by way of derogation from

the rules on State aid, for companies that will have to cease operating;

4. what sort of contribution countries who are set to join the EU might be asked to make to these

compensation measures?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The enlargement of the European Union represents a historic opportunity for peace and prosperity in
Europe. If it is to succeed, it must receive as much support as possible from the public in both the Member
States and the ten countries which are preparing to join. In that respect, it is clear that enlargement is
bound to raise fears concerning the prospect of
increased competition in regions bordering those
countries.

In order to respond to those concerns, and at the invitation of the Nice European Council, the Commission
forwarded a plan of action for cross-border regions (1) to the Council in July 2001. The aim of the plan,
which concerns 23 regions with a population of around 33 million inhabitants,
is to facilitate the
transition towards economic integration. Furthermore, on the initiative of the European Parliament, a
specific budget heading was created to finance pilot projects in favour of those regions. Hence in 2000 a
total of EUR 20 million was allocated to that budget heading to finance various initiatives, particularly to
assist small and medium-sized undertakings in the sectors affected by enlargement. This is in addition to
the substantial aid which border regions are already receiving (or will do when they accede) from the
structural funds, more particularly under the Interreg programme.

The Council would invite the Honourable Member to contact the Commission directly in order to obtain
detailed information from it on the facilities which may be available to undertakings to enable them to
face up to the special problems resulting from enlargement in the context of the implementation of the
guidelines which it has established with regard to State aid at regional level.

(1) COM(2001) 437 final, 25.7.2001.

(2003/C 222 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0276/03

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Council

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Transfer of currency reserves

Transfers of currency reserves have reportedly taken place in Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy without
objections being raised by the competent EU authorities.

Have currency reserves held by national banks in fact been transferred and can these reserves then be used
freely on the basis of national budget decisions (e.g. to finance public road-building or research)?

Must EU authorities, and if so, which ones, authorise such transfers, or can such a decision be taken solely
at national level?

What volume of currency reserves are available for transfer in the individual countries involved?