WRITTEN QUESTION E-1268/03 by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission. Rules governing local radio broadcasters in Italy.
Date: 2003-04-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Italy, broadcasting, company with share capital, competition law, freedom to provide services, operating cost, partnership, single market, telecommunications

C 58 E/54

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

public Spanish shipyards. It can furthermore be noted that the relevant Commission decision was partly
based on Council Regulation (2) 1013/97 of 2 June 1997 on aid to certain shipyards under restructuring,
which also stated the condition on the non-reopening to shipbuilding at Astano. However,
the
Commission has not received any formal request from the Spanish government concerning the Fene yard
and has not taken any position on this issue.

(1) OJ C 354, 21.11.1997, p. 2.
(2) OJ L 148, 6.6.1997, p. 1.

(2004/C 58 E/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1260/03

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

(3 April 2003)

Subject: Presence of Galician vessels in the development of the fishing industry in Brazil

Is the Commission aware of the experiences of fishing vessels from Galician ports such as Vigo, La Coruña,
Ribeira and Marín which are working or have worked in waters under exclusive Brazilian competence,
hiring licences from Brazilian companies? Will
the desire for
cooperation shown by the new Brazilian government and take steps which might lead to mutually
beneficial agreements?

the Commission take advantage of

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

At present there is no fisheries agreement between the Community and Brazil. Thus any fishing in
Brazilian waters by vessels flying the flag of a Member State is not covered by such an agreement.
The Commission does not rule out the possibility that under private contracts Community vessels have
been allowed to fish in these waters.

The Commission has maintained contact in the past with Brazil in order to explore the possibility of
reaching mutually advantageous agreements in the fisheries sector. These have however never given rise to
formal negotiations.

The Commission is ready to consult regularly with Brazil on questions of mutual interest in the sector. If a
desire for cooperation arrangements was to be confirmed it would be ready to discuss directly what the
content of these should be.

(2004/C 58 E/073)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1268/03

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Rules governing local radio broadcasters in Italy

(3 April 2003)

Article 1(2)(a) of Law No 66 of 20 March 2001 requires that commercial local radio broadcasters in Italy
have the legal status of partnerships or joint stock companies that employ at least two people in
conformity with the social security provisions in force.

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/55

Does the Commission not consider that this rule forces local radio broadcasters to bear considerable fixed
costs (in addition to the licence fee already imposed) to the detriment of free competition, and that this
openly conflicts with Directive 97/13/EC (1) and the annex to that directive, recital 25 of which indicates
its essential goal as being that of ‘ensuring the development of the internal market in the field of
telecommunications and specifically the free provision of telecommunications services and networks
throughout the Community’?

More precisely, recital 2 of the directive states the intention to ‘ensure that general authorisation and
individual licensing regimes are based on the principle of proportionality and are open, non-discriminatory
and transparent’. Recital 3 states that ‘market entry should be restricted on the basis only of objective, non-
discriminatory, proportionate and transparent selection criteria relating to the availability of scarce
resources or on the basis of the implementation by national regulatory authorities of objective, non-
discriminatory and transparent award procedures’. Recital 4 indicates that ‘general authorisation and
individual licensing systems should provide for the lightest possible regulation’ and, lastly, recital 10 states
that ‘any conditions attached to authorisations should be objectively justified in relation to the service
concerned and should be non-discriminatory, proportionate and transparent’.

(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997, p. 15.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2003)

The questions of the Honourable Member concern the obligation established by the Law of 20 March
2001, No 66 which makes the continuation of the activity of a local radio broadcaster subject to certain
requirements as to its legal status. In his view, firstly this law would force the local broadcasters to bear
considerable fixed costs to the detriment of free competition. Secondly, the law would be in breach of
Directive 97/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for
general authorizations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (hereafter, the
Licensing Directive), since it would require affected operators to incur significant additional costs, which
would hinder the development of competition.

While the relevant requirements may mean a burden for the relevant operators, there are nevertheless no
indications that they limit free competition. Moreover, the requirements apply in the same way to all
operators and could be justified by the need to ensure a minimal continuity and professionality of the
services of the broadcasters allowed to use scarce radiospectrum. In such case, the relevant obligation
could be considered proportionate.

in the
As regards the compliance with the Licensing Directive,
Commission’s opinion, to fall within its scope of application. As stated in its Article 2(2), Directive 97/
13/EC uses the same definitions as Directive 90/387/EEC (1) as amended (2), which applies to tele-
communications services with the exception of radio and television broadcasting. In addition, Article 1(2)
of the Licensing Directive states that ‘this Directive is without prejudice to the specific rules adopted by the
Member States in accordance with Community law, governing the distribution of audiovisual programmes
intended for the general public and for the content of such programmes’.

the issue raised does not seem,

With effect from 25 July 2003, the Licensing Directive will be repealed by Directive 2002/20/EC of the
Parliament an of the Council on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services
(hereafter, the Authorisation Directive) (3). As in the case of the old framework, the new regulatory
framework, including the Authorisation Directive, does not cover the content of services delivered over
electronic communications networks using electronic communication services, such as broadcasting
content.

However, the Authorisation Directive applies to authorisation for the provision of electronic communi-
cations networks and services, which includes networks used for radio broadcasting, in accordance with
the definition in Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on a common

C 58 E/56

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (3). The deadline
for transposition of the Authorisation Directive is 24 July 2003. Italy is currently drafting the relevant
legislation. The Commission will naturally assess the compliance of the relevant national legislation with
the new Community regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services once this
has been notified.

(1) Council Directive 90/387/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the establishment of the internal market for telecommunications

services through the implementation of open network provision, OJ L 192, 24.7.1990.

(2) Directive 97/51/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Council Directives 90/387/
EEC and 92/44/EEC for the purpose of adaptation to a competitive environment in telecommunications, OJ L 295,
29.10.1997.

(3) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

(2004/C 58 E/074)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1301/03

by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject: Support for aquaculture under Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999

In its communication COM(2002) 511 (cid:1) A strategy for the sustainable development of European
aquaculture (cid:1) the Commission points out that certain environmental aspects of ponds or other water
bodies in use for aquaculture are eligible for EU support under Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1) (p. 20).
Point 4.8 provides a list of environmental aspects eligible for support which includes, inter alia, action to
‘recognise and strengthen the positive impact of extensive culture and re-stocking’.

Can support be provided under this scheme for extensively farmed ponds even where they are not

1.
economically viable?

2. What precise measures does the Commission consider must be taken for such aquaculture to be
eligible for support?

3. What maximum rates would be set for such support?

4. What type of funding would be involved?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2003)

While support for the aquaculture sector per se is not eligible for support under Council Regulation (EC)
No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF),
the Honourable Member correctly indicates that certain
environmental aspects of ponds or other water bodies in use for aquaculture can be supported. Such
support falls in particular within Chapter VI of this Regulation (agri-environment). The provisions on
environmental objectives and support fixed in this Chapter can equally apply to ponds which might be
used for aquaculture, provided the beneficiary is a farmer.

With regard to the individual questions of the Honourable Member, the following can be stated:

1.

For agri-environment
the economic viability is not an eligibility criterion. General criterion for
granting aid under the above-mentioned Chapter VI is benefits for the environment. If these benefits
are demonstrated, the efforts of a potential beneficiary to achieve them resulting in income foregone
and cost incurred can be compensated; where necessary, an incentive up to 20 % of these losses can
be paid.