WRITTEN QUESTION E-2254/03 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Email: EU measures to eliminate spam.
Date: 2003-07-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: advertising, communications policy, consumer protection, data protection, electronic mail, information technology, law relating to information, trade information

C 51 E/232

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

(2004/C 51 E/251)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2249/03

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Situation of workers at the Sintel company (Spain)

(1 July 2003)

Although it is now almost two years since they accepted the government’s offer and conditions (agreement
of 3 August 2001) designed to facilitate the introduction of a package of measures to resolve the crisis at
Sintel with the involvement of all the parties concerned, the workers at the bankrupt Sintel company
remain as defenceless now as they were when the crisis first arose.

The workers’ legal representatives have still not been invited to meet with receivers, the government or the
Telefónica telecommunications company, as a party involved in the bankruptcy procedure, given that the
workers are the main creditors. Without the participation of the workers it is difficult to see how the
agreement can be implemented.

It has been two years since bankruptcy was declared (by order of 28 May 2001) and yet no meeting of
creditors has as yet been called to appoint official receivers, thereby making it impossible for the workers
to exercise their rights as creditors. Many aspects of the agreement have not been complied with and the
workers’ rights have not been upheld.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Does it not believe that the Spanish Government ought to ensure compliance with the agreement

2.
reached with the workers at Sintel?

3. Will it say what action the EU is taking with regard to the Sintel case and the apparent failure on the
part of the Spanish Government to honour the agreement?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The agreement reached between the companies concerned and the Spanish government on the one hand
and the representatives of workers at the Sintel company on the other hand is governed by Spanish law.
The Commission is therefore unable to comment on the application of the agreement, and it is the task of
the competent Spanish authorities to ensure compliance with it.

(2004/C 51 E/252)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2254/03

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Email: EU measures to eliminate spam

(8 July 2003)

Spam has in recent years become an ever-worsening problem on a worldwide scale. It now already
accounts for over half of all email traffic, and as many as 9 billion spam messages can flood the Internet in
a single day. FiCom, the Finnish telecommunications and information technology umbrella organisation,
estimates that European companies lost EUR 2,5 billion last year because of spam. The problem is both
economically costly and very irritating for users of wireless communication services in particular.

How will the Commission ensure that the growing spam problem is effectively solved as quickly as
possible and hence that the nuisances caused are appreciably reduced? How has it dealt with the huge
spam problem in its projected EU information technology and electronic communications legislation?
Have, for example, the challenges posed by spam been taken sufficiently into account for the purposes of
the forthcoming revision of the European data protection directives? Does the Commission have a
programme of measures to eliminate spam? Does it think that the spam problem can be tackled using new
technology?

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/233

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

In response to the question raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission confirms that unsolicited
commercial e-mail or ‘spam’ has reached a point where it creates a major problem for individuals and
businesses and, indeed, for the development of e-commerce and e-services.

The answer given on the same issue to Written Questions No E-1997/03 by M. Papayannakis and E-2085/
03 by G. Watson (1) will indicate to the Honourable Member what measures have been taken so far, in
particular via Directive 2002/58/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the
processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (2),
which has to be transposed by the end of October 2003.

The Commission also expects a Communication on spam to be adopted in the Autumn 2003. The
Member of the Commission responsible for Enterprise and Information Society has recently outlined what
concrete action was planned to combat spam on the legal, technical, awareness, and international fronts (3).
The proposed measures will be first discussed with Member States and interested parties through a
workshop to be convened in October 2003.

(1) See page 178.
(2) OJ L 201, 31.7.2002.
(3) See IP/03/1015.

(2004/C 51 E/253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2255/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(8 July 2003)

Subject: Detention of three Westerners and four Laotian citizens

On 4 June 2003 the Laotian authorities arrested the Belgian journalist Thierry Falise,
the French
photographer and cameraman Vincent Reynaud, the American national Naw-Karl Mua, and four Laotian
nationals whose identities have not been released. The seven people arrested were in the province of
Xhieng Khouang, to the north of Vientiane, working on a report on the Hmong, a people that has suffered
cruel repression by the authorities of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic for many years. The charges
against the seven detainees have yet to be made public. Moreover, the French, Belgian and American
nationals were only able to meet French diplomats nearly two weeks after their arrest, a flagrant violation
of the international conventions in force. The trial of Mr Falise, Mr Reynaud and Mr Mua, which according
to diplomatic sources should have begun on 27 June, has already been put back to Monday, 30 June. It is
supposed to take place in Phonesavanh, in a relatively inaccessible region more than ten hours’ drive from
the capital. The defendants risk heavy prison sentences. As for the four Laotian nationals, the authorities in
Vientiane only acknowledged their arrest on 20 June, and no information has been given about the
charges against them or about their whereabouts and conditions of detention.

What measures has the Commission taken to make its indignation clear to the authorities in Vientiane in
the wake of yet another violation of the basic rights of Laotian and foreign nationals and of the
international conventions on the right of access of diplomats to arrested persons?

What measures has the Commission taken to ensure that the legal proceedings brought against the seven
persons arrested will take place in compliance with the recognised international rules regarding the right to
a fair trial? What steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the four Laotian nationals
arrested with the Western journalists do not suffer the fate of ‘disappearance’, as has already happened to
many victims of the violent repression of the anti-democratic Laotian regime, including the five student
leaders of the 26 October 1999 Movement?