WRITTEN QUESTION E-2501/03 by Anne Jensen (ELDR) to the Commission. Budget chapter B3-4000 for 2002.
Date: 2003-07-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, corporate social responsibility, social dialogue (EU), workers' stock ownership

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/265

(2004/C 33 E/275)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2479/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Canned tuna from Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia

(24 July 2003)

Since 1 July 2003 Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia have benefited from a quota for exports of
canned tuna to the EU at a reduced tariff of 12 % on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 975/2003 (1)
of 5 June 2003 opening and providing for the administration of a tariff quota for imports of canned tuna
covered by CN codes 1604 14 11, 1604 14 18 and 1604 20 70.

Can the Commission say which establishments are authorised to import this type of products into

1.
the Community, specifying in each case the country of origin of the canned products concerned?

Can the Commission say what type of checks are being or will be made on this canned tuna and on

2.
producers in order to guarantee food safety for Community consumers?

(1) OJ L 141, 7.6.2003, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

Sanitary conditions for the imports of fishery products, including tuna, from Indonesia, the Philippines and
Thailand are laid down in Commission Decision 94/324/EC (1), 95/190/EC (2) and 94/325/EC (3)
respectively (as amended).

1.
The list of establishments from which the imports of fishery products from Thailand, Philippines and
Indonesia are authorised can be found in http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/sanco/vets/info/data/listes/
ffp.html.

The above cited Decisions provide that fishery products imported from the mentioned countries shall be
marked with the indication of the name, in capital letters, of the exporting country and with the number
or the code of the approved establishment.

The sanitary controls on all the fishery products (Community or imported) to be marketed in the

2.
Community are those provided by Council Directive 91/493/EEC (4).

(1) 94/324/EC: Commission Decision of 19 May 1994 laying down special conditions governing imports of fishery and

aquaculture products originating in Indonesia, OJ L 145, 10.6.1994.

(2) 95/190/EC: Commission Decision of 17 May 1995 laying down special conditions governing the import of fishery

and aquaculture products originating in the Philippines, OJ L 123, 3.6.1995.

(3) 94/325/EC: Commission Decision of 19 May 1994 laying down special conditions governing imports of fishery and

aquaculture products originating in Thailand, OJ L 145, 10.6.1994.

(4) Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the

placing on the market of fishery products, OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.

(2004/C 33 E/276)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2501/03

by Anne Jensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Budget chapter B3-4000 for 2002

In 2002, the Commission allocated funding under budget chapter B3-4000 to programmes concerning
‘corporate social responsibility’, ‘industrial relations’, ‘social dialogue’ and ‘financial participation’. A number
of applications were successfully submitted to the Commission for project funding.

How many applications were submitted for project funding under the above programmes and what
percentage of applications were rejected?

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,