WRITTEN QUESTION E-1550/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Uncontrolled flows of funds on the transfer of media ownership in Poland and possible preferential treatment for Poland as a new EU Member State.
Date: 2003-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Poland, accession criteria, accession negotiations, accession to the European Union, audiovisual industry, board of management, corruption, financial control, financial transaction, national law

C 78 E/36

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The Member States were not directly involved in the process leading up to the Joint Declaration. The
Commission would, however, stress that this declaration only aims to define a method for discussions with
the US authorities which might lead to a solution that is consistent with Community law. In this context,
the Commission has paid particular attention to the situation confronting European airlines, which are
faced with the conflicting demands made by two different legal systems and the threat of tough economic
sanctions which could even extend to the withdrawal of their landing rights in the USA.

The solution envisaged by the Commission is based on Article 25.6 of Directive 95/46/EC. This provision
allows the Commission to recognise that a third country ensures adequate protection of
the data
transferred to it. The Member States take part in the decision-making process through their involvement in
the Committee set up by Article 31 of Directive 95/46/EC, as this Committee has to deliver an opinion on
the draft of the measures to be taken, in accordance with the comitology rules.

The Commission has not conducted a detailed examination into the compatibility of the US law with the
national legislation of the Member States, given that the proposed measures posed problems vis-à-vis the
requirements of Directive 95/46/EC, and all Member States legislation has to comply with that Directive.

Finally,
individual Member States and the USA.

the Commission has no knowledge of any agreements concluded on this subject between

(1) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 281,
23.11.1995.

(2004/C 78 E/0036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1550/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Uncontrolled flows of

funds on the transfer of media ownership in Poland and possible

preferential treatment for Poland as a new EU Member State

Has the Polish government requested financial contributions from a newspaper in return for a change

1.
in the law which would make it easier for that newspaper to take over television companies?

2.
Have the financial contributions referred to in question 1 gone to in the Polish Exchequer to be used
for expenditure decided upon by the government and parliament and traceable in the government budget
and final accounts for the relevant financial year, or did the funds end up in the hands of private
individuals and/or organisations, details of which are not available to the public?

3.
If this action was in breach of Polish law, will the matter be brought before the courts, or are the
police under political pressure to restrict their investigations and inquiries, after which the case will be
dropped because of lack of evidence?

4.
Does the emphasis placed by Commissioner Verheugen in the Netherlands TV programme ‘It’s a
Knockout’ (KRO-Reporter) on 10 April 2003 on Poland’s large population compared with the nine others
States that will join the EU at the same time in 2004 mean that special priority is being given to Polish
membership? Is there a possibility that this priority may result in non-compliance with the EU ‘acquis’
being treated more flexibly in the case of Poland than in the case of other States?

5. Will Poland be judged by the same standards as those by which the other new Member States that
have complied with their obligations more fully will continue to be judged?

6.
On what basis does Commissioner Verheugen conclude that by the time of its accession on 1 May
2004 Poland will have completely satisfied the requirements of existing EU legislation? What guarantees
are there that this will happen on time? What is the Commission doing to prevent a return to the present
level of corruption after 1 May 2004?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/37

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

The Commission is closely monitoring the implementation of the commitments Poland has made in the
law the
accession negotiations. This is the case with regard to the amendment to the audio-visual
Honourable Member refers to in his first question, as well as with regard to all other areas that have been
subject to the negotiations with Poland.

The Commission is, however, not in a position to judge upon the ‘Rywin-gate’ corruption affair to which
the first three questions refer. This affair is currently under close investigation by the Polish judicial
authorities. The Public Prosecutor has concluded its work and is expected to submit the outcome to the
relevant court within the next couple of days. In the meantime, the special inquiry committee of the Polish
Parliament, will pursue its investigation of the affair. Whilst the Commission may regret that bribery
attempts at such a scale could have taken place, it also notes the openness and determination by which it
is being dealt with by the Polish authorities at this moment.

With regard to questions 4 and 5, the Commission wishes to underline that the accession negotiations as
well as the monitoring of commitments with the ten Candidate Countries have been, and are being, carried
out on a purely objective basis, with no more favourable treatment for any of the Candidate Countries.
The same standards have applied during the negotiations and will continue to be applied in the monitoring
process.

As regards the last question, the Commission concluded in its Regular Report on Poland’s Progress towards
accession of October 2002 (1) that Poland would be fulfilling all of the three accession criteria (political,
economic and ‘acquis’ related) as from 2004 onwards. The Member States concluded that enlargement
would take place on 1 May 2004 and the Commission, as explained above, is closely monitoring further
progress made by all of the Candidate Countries. A Comprehensive Monitoring Report, laying down the
results of this monitoring process, is scheduled to be presented to the Parliament and to the Council and
made public by the beginning of November 2003. On the basis of this Report, the Commission may
consider safeguard clauses in certain specific areas if such are necessary.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report2002/pl_en.pdf.

(2004/C 78 E/0037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1551/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Labelling of products containing asbestos

Council Directive 83/478/EEC (1) of 19 September 1983 lays down special provisions making it
compulsory for the labelling of products containing asbestos to warn against the dangers.

However, in Portugal some products containing asbestos, such as fibre-cement, do not carry a warning
when sold to the public.

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in the legal transposition of this directive in
Portugal?

Can it explain the reason for Portugal’s non-compliance?

(1) OJ L 263, 24.9.1983, p. 33.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Council Directive 83/478/EEC of 19 September 1983 amending for the fifth time (asbestos) Directive 76/
769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States
relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations was