WRITTEN QUESTION P-1723/03 by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Market manipulation in Slovakia.
Date: 2003-05-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Czechia, EU Accession Treaty, Hungary, Slovakia, capital transfer, energy industry, financial market, insider trading, securities, share

C 51 E/132

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Furthermore, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000
establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (2) establishes a framework for
water policy at Community level. In addition, it promotes sustainable use of water and enhances protection
and improvement of the aquatic environment with the aim of achieving good status for all waters by
2015. With regard to the situation of over-exploitation of the aquifers and the effects on underground
it can be said that this
water quality, quantity, and overall management of groundwater resources,
represents improper and unsustainable management of groundwater resources.

With regard to the authorisation of abstractions for surface water and groundwater, these are decided at
national, regional and local level. Article 11 of Directive 2000/60/EC requires Member States to control
the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater, including a register of water abstractions and a
requirement
for prior authorisation for abstraction and impoundment, as a basic measure to be
implemented at river basin level. However, the programme of measures, including the basic ones, must
be established by 22 December 2009 at the latest.

Finally, the Commission considers, as required in Directive 2000/60/EC, that integrated water management
within the river basin is the appropriate model for the sustainable use of water resources. Accordingly,
several actions have financially contributed to the improvement of the aquatic environment. Almost
EUR 150 million is earmarked for cleaning up the waters of the Segura, of which EUR 120 million will
come from the European Union’s Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund. This infrastructure should support
the Spanish authorities’ efforts to maintain an ecological flow in the river. A list of the infrastructure is
being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

(1) See page 80.
(2) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(2004/C 51 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1723/03

by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject: Market manipulation in Slovakia

In November 2002, MOL, the Hungarian oil and gas company, agreed to acquire 31 % of the shares of the
Slovak company Slovnaft, which is listed on the Bratislava stock exchange. The transaction was subject to
clearance from the Czech and Slovak competition authorities, which was obtained and published on
25 March 2003.

Under Slovak law, the transaction put MOL under the obligation to make a public offer for the remaining
Slovnaft shares on the Slovak stock exchange. The price of that offer is based on a weighted average over
the six months previous to the announcement of the approval by the competition authorities. A few days
prior to the publication of the competition authorities’ approval, the price at which trades in Slovnaft
shares were conducted began to increase dramatically. A number of suspect transactions took place
between 17 and 20 March 2003 that could only be based on information on the forthcoming approval by
the competition authorities. The aim of those transactions was to drive up significantly the price at which
the public offer for the remaining Slovnaft shares would have to be made.

The result of these suspect transactions is that the weighted average price increased by 41 % over a period
of four days.

Is the Commission aware of these events? Does the Commission consider these transactions compatible
with Directive 2003/6/EC (1) on insider dealing and market manipulation? What steps will the Commission
undertake to ensure that the Slovak Financial Market Supervision Office investigates this matter in total
independence from the influence of any financial market participants, as the Commission pointed out is
necessary in its October 2002 Progress report towards EU accession for Slovakia?

(1) OJ L 96, 12.4.2003, p. 16.

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/133

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

The Commission is not a securities market supervisor and is therefore not in a position, on the basis of the
information supplied by the Honourable Member, to pronounce itself whether there are grounds to
consider that there has been a case of market manipulation with regard to the price and trading volume of
the concerned target company’s shares (Slovnaft a.s.). As regards the relevant Community legal framework
market manipulation is now covered by the new Directive 2003/6/EC of the Parliament and of the Council
of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (1). However, the deadline
for transposition into national law of this Directive is not until October 2004.

If it were to be the case that certain alleged transactions have been carried out with the use of inside
information, Council Directive 89/592/EEC of 13 November 1989 on insider dealing (2) might be
applicable. However, the Directive cannot be enforced in Slovakia before the Accession Treaties enter
into force. Nevertheless, in view of the seriousness of the matter, the Commission will make every effort to
liase with the Slovakian authorities in order to address the reported concerns satisfactorily in the context of
the accession process.

(1) OJ L 96, 12.4.2003.
(2) OJ L 334, 18.11.1989.

(2004/C 51 E/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1730/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject: Eurojust annual report for 2002

Given that the Eurojust annual report for 2002 highlights many problems linked to the functioning and
the activities of that body,

does the Commission not share my view:

(a) as regards Eurojust and its relations with other bodies: that there is overlap between and confusion
regarding the roles of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network (particularly as the report itself
acknowledges that those roles are ‘similar in many ways’ and states that the difference is not yet by
any means clear to legal practicioners at national level); given that they are two separate bodies which
administer confidential, personal
information, that relations between Eurojust and the European
Judicial Network should be based on clear rules, rather than, as stated in the report, flexible, informal
arrangements; that there is a need to make relations between Eurojust, on the one hand, and Europol
and OLAF, on the other, more transparent and provide for legal and democratic scrutiny at European
level; that there is a need to clarify Eurojust’s role in the Joint Investigation Teams; that relations
between Eurojust and third States and bodies which have already taken part in Eurojust meetings and
exchanged information with Eurojust are consistent with Article 27 of the decision setting up
Eurojust?

(b) as regards access to information, data protection and transparency: that Eurojust’s proposal, set out in
the 2002 report, to establish a database covering investigations (and, in particular, one dealing with
child pornography on the Internet) is vague and raises doubts as to its conformity with the decision
setting up Eurojust; that the current rules do not provide for Eurojust access to the Schengen database,
or indeed ‘direct or indirect access to the information’ contained in the SIS by the national members of
Eurojust; that access to the minutes of Eurojust meetings should be guaranteed in accordance with
Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 (1); that the report contains no information regarding the appointment of
a data protection officer; that the appointment, only in early 2003, of the final member of the Joint
Supervisory Body for Data Protection which is responsible for Eurojust put an end to what had been,
to that point, a major breach of the provisions on data protection in the decision setting up Eurojust?

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.