WRITTEN QUESTION E-2505/03 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Procedure 2001/2151 instituted against Italy under Article 226 of the Treaty for infringement of Directive 89/552/EEC (Television without Frontiers).
Date: 2003-07-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, advertising, application of EU law, broadcasting, infringement procedure (EU), operation of the Institutions, supervisory body, television

C 33 E/266

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

In 2002, the Commission received a total of 307 applications under budget heading B3-4000, of which
125 proposals were approved. This represents an acceptance rate of 41 per cent.

The corresponding figures per sub-programme were as follows:

(cid:1) Sub-programme 1: Support for European social dialogue

(cid:1) 135 received, of which 63 retained (46,7 %);

(cid:1) Sub-programme 2: Promoting the financial participation of workers

(cid:1) 19 received, of which 8 retained (42,1 %);

(cid:1) Sub-programme 3: Improving expertise in the field of industrial relations

(cid:1) 57 received, of which 25 retained (43,9 %);

(cid:1) Sub-programme 4: Corporate social responsibility and fundamental social rights

(cid:1) 96 received, of which 29 retained (30,2 %).

(2004/C 33 E/277)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2505/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Procedure 2001/2151 instituted against Italy under Article 226 of the Treaty for infringement of

Directive 89/552/EEC (Television without Frontiers)

Knowing that:

(cid:1) in 2001 the Commission instituted infringement procedure 2001/2151 against Italy under Article 226
of the Treaty in connection with the implementation of Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1) (as amended
by Directive 97/36/EC (2));

(cid:1) on 20 March 2002 it decided (PV (2002) 1560) to send a letter of formal notice to the Italian

authorities;

(cid:1) a recent study by Carat Export indicates that the weekly advertising concentration in Italy (435
potential spot advertisements) is apparently double the level in Germany (220) and France (260);

(cid:1) in its annual reports for 2000 (point 8.1), 2001 (point 2.5.1), and 2002 (point 3.12.1) the Media
Safeguards Authority, the body responsible under Italian law for monitoring compliance with the
provisions in question, stated that it had initiated investigations and other procedures in order to
establish what
infringements had been committed by television stations where advertising and
sponsorship were concerned.

The Commission:

(cid:1) does it believe that the Italian state has sufficiently supervised television stations as regards commercial
advertising (timing of spot advertisements, commercial breaks, concentration rates, teleshopping, and
infomercials), as it is required to do under Directive 89/552/EEC and the amendments thereto;

(cid:1) does it consider that the procedure for determining whether the directive has been infringed, adopted
by the Italian Parliament
is appropriate for its purpose?
Furthermore, does it think that the Italian authorities have interpreted the letter of the directive
according to its spirit;

in implementation of

the directive,

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/267

(cid:1) does it know how many infringements were ascertained by the Media Safeguards Authority in the

years from 1999 to 2002 and in how many cases penalties were imposed as a result;

(cid:1) does it believe that the Media Safeguards Authority has employed human and financial resources on

the scale required to enable it effectively to perform the tasks assigned to it by law?

(1) OJ L 298, 7.10.1989, p. 23.
(2) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(1 September 2003)

The infringement procedure the Honourable Member refers to was based on a monitoring conducted by
the Commission in 1999. The results of
the monitoring raised serious doubts whether the Italian
authorities were sufficiently supervising the application of legislation implementing Chapter IV of the
the monitoring period
Television without
coincided with the transitional stage when the powers were transferred from the broadcasting and
publishing standards board and the Ministry of Communications to the newly established authority and
that the situation had considerably improved since then.

frontiers Directive (1). The Italian authorities argued that

The Commission asked for additional information concerning the improvement made in monitoring of the
rules on advertising and the reply of the Italian authorities of 21 May 2003 provided satisfactory answers
to its questions. Staff allocated to this task had increased from 2000 to 2002 of about 30 % (4,5 to 6 full
time). Financial resources have been doubled in the same period (EUR 61 000 to EUR 122 000). As far as
the number of proceedings is concerned the Italian authorities reported that 198 proceedings against
broadcasters were initiated in 1999 and 497 in 2000. According to information available a recent High
Court ruling has simplified the current procedure and therefore makes it easier for the Media Safeguards
Authority to impose effective sanctions.

With a view to the essentially enhanced situation concerning the application of
the Directive the
Commission on 9 July 2003, decided to terminate this case. This does not exclude that the Commission
might start or continue with infringement procedures that concern specific, advertising practices in Italy.

(1) 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,
as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 30 June 1997.

(2004/C 33 E/278)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2519/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE)
and Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: German mandatory deposit system

The introduction in Germany of a mandatory deposit system on one-way containers for soft drinks, beer
and water on 1 January 2003 has led to severe indirect discrimination against importing companies. As a
result of this mandatory deposit system on cans and one-way plastic and glass bottles, the German retailers
have removed these containers from their shops because the collection of these recipients is complicated,
unhygienic and costly.

As a consequence imports of soft drinks, waters and beer have stopped almost completely. Foreign
companies can only deliver their products on the German market in one-way packaging because of the
transport distance and the structure of their companies. German companies are still maintaining or even
increasing their market share because they can deliver in refillable packaging, which does not suffer from
the new mandatory deposit rules.