WRITTEN QUESTION E-0401/03 by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Transparency in the application of broadcasting legislation in the Czech Republic.
Date: 2003-02-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Czechia, accession to the European Union, investment abroad, legal action, private media, regulation of telecommunications, trade dispute

C 88 E/598

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

The Commission deplores the harassment to which the Amani Trust was subject and which obliged it to
cease operations. It was an independent and reputable organisation offering assistance to victims of all
forms of organised violence, whose work in difficult circumstances in Zimbabwe was always appreciated.

(2004/C 88 E/0611)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0401/03

by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Transparency in the application of broadcasting legislation in the Czech Republic

In its latest Regular Report on the Czech Republic (1), the European Commission criticised that country’s
‘continued lack of
transparency and stability in relation to questions of ownership and control of
commercial TV stations’. It noted that ‘a second such dispute has now arisen that may also have to be
solved in international arbitration courts’. The Commission furthermore notes that the Czech Council for
Radio and Television Broadcasting ‘should ensure the timely, objective and effective application of
broadcasting legislation’ and that ‘it remains particularly important to establish and supervise effectively a
transparent and predictable regulatory framework’.

How will the Commission continue to monitor the handling by the Czech authorities of the problems of
the past, such as the TV3 case which is mentioned by the Regular Report (‘the second such dispute’),
whereby EC investors were discriminated against in a licence transfer decision of the Czech Council for
Radio and Television Broadcasting? Are any specific actions planned by the Commission?

(1) SEC(2002) 1402, Chapter 20, pages 99-101, of 9 October 2002.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

The concerns expressed by the Commission in its 2002 Regular Report (1) reflect the two ongoing disputes
concerning foreign investment in Czech commercial television stations and the additional mid-2002
disagreements (now apparently solved) within the Czech Republic about control of the largest commercial
channel. That these three issues were able to develop suggests that measures should be taken by the Czech
authorities to improve matters in the sector via the amendment of relevant legislation, the modification of
regulatory practice, or a combination of the two.

The 2002 Report also sought to highlight the central role that the regulator plays in such an environment,
particularly at a time when (following recent adoption of new legislation) precedents are set and its
authority must be established.

The audio-visual ‘acquis’ does not detail specific requirements about broadcasting sector regulation, nor
about the licensing processes which have been at the centre of the TV3 dispute. The Television Without
Frontiers Directive (2) requires that Member States be in a position to effectively implement the ‘acquis’,
which gives the Commission grounds to express concerns with the general state of regulation in the sector,
and call for improvements (cid:1) but not to require exact models of regulation or licensing.

There have been numerous contacts between Commission officials and parties interested in the TV3
dispute and the Commission continues to follow developments very closely. Allegations of discrimination
are taken very seriously by the Commission, as are the duties attached to the monitoring of Candidate
Countries. The Commission will reflect developments in this sector as appropriate when presenting its
2003 Monitoring Report.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/599

However, the Commission’s scope for ‘specific actions’ in commercial disputes such as this is limited, in
particular when such disputes are sub judice. The foreign investor filed a lawsuit in the Czech Republic
immediately after the regulator made its disputed decision (cid:1) the lawsuit was rejected by the Prague
Municipal Court, and the Czech Constitutional Court is considering the appeal. The foreign investor is also
now about to file a claim based on the Belgium/Luxembourg (cid:1) Czech Republic Bilateral Investment
Treaty. Legal proceedings must take their course. The Commission will continue to emphasise to the Czech
authorities the importance of effective supervision of a transparent and predictable regulatory framework.

(1) COM(2002) 700 final.
(2) Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law,
Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities,
OJ L 298, 17.10.1989.

(2004/C 88 E/0612)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0796/03

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 March 2003)

Subject: Bureaucracy and the EDF

Several charities and non-governmental organisations have recently criticised the freezing by the EDF of
EUR 11,2 billion earmarked for projects aimed at fighting AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria as a result of
administrative problems.

Can the Commission confirm this circumstance and the figures cited?

Can the Commission explain what has been or is being done, both to resolve this situation and to ensure
that it is not repeated?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

This question is a welcome opportunity for the Commission to clarify something that appeared in the
press and that can be qualified as a major misunderstanding of the modus operandi of the European
Development Funds (EDF).

European Development Funds are put into place by the Community for the benefit of African, Caribbean
and Pacific (ACP)-countries through five-year financial protocols. Under the 6th, 7th and 8th EDF, which
were still operational until the entry into force of the 9th EDF on first April 2003, a total amount of
EUR 32,4 billion have been allocated to ACP countries (1). As of end February 2003, of this amount
EUR 29,7 billion (92 %) were committed and EUR 21,3 billion (66 %) disbursed. This means that
EUR 2,7 billion were still available for commitments (which are foreseen essentially in the course of 2003)
and EUR 11,1 billion for disbursements.

Contrary to the information referred by the Honourable Member, these funds were not earmarked for
projects aimed at fighting Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), tuberculosis and malaria. Funds
from the 6th, 7th and 8th EDF were allocated to national programmes, various horizontal instruments
(structural adjustment support, debt reduction, emergency assistance etc.) and to regional co-operation and
integration.

A small part of the funds allocated to regional co-operation was earmarked in 2002 for a contribution of
EUR 60 million from the EDF to the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria. This amount has
indeed not yet been disbursed, because the contribution agreement is being negotiated between the Global
Fund and the Commission. In accordance with the provisions of the Cotonou agreement, the contribution