WRITTEN QUESTION E-3174/03 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. European film-making.
Date: 2003-10-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European audiovisual area, artistic creation, audiovisual production, cultural cooperation, cultural promotion, cultural transmission, film production

C 78 E/234

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0236)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3169/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject: Ban on dangerous dog breeds

Unfortunately, my previous questions concerning a ban on dangerous dogs have had no effect. It is true
that one or two Member States, Italy and Austria for example, have already taken measures against violent
and aggressive dogs by making muzzles compulsory in public places, such as bus stops and parks, and
introducing training schools for puppies, but these measures do not go far enough. Recently, we have
again been confronted with terrible headlines about pitbulls attacking children and adults. It is not enough
that individual Member States or regions tackle the behaviour of some breeds of dog. There must be a
European directive banning dangerous dog breeds.

How many more people need to be bitten to death or mutilated in the Commission’s opinion?

How much longer must we wait before action is finally taken at Community level?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The legal basis for Community action in the area of human health protection is Article 152 of the EC
Treaty. The first paragraph of this article stipulates that where Community action complements national
policies, the principle of subsidiarity applies. According to this principle, which is set out in Article 5 of
the EC Treaty, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action
only where the objectives of the proposed action can be better achieved by the Community.

In the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission does not have a sufficiently sound and
conclusive scientific basis to propose European legislation on this subject itself, rather than leaving it to the
Member States.

It is up to the Member States to adopt the necessary measures at national
accidents of this kind.

level

in order to prevent

(2004/C 78 E/0237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3174/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject: European film-making

What is the European Union doing through the MEDIA Programme to improve the quality of scripts for
European films? If a scriptwriter wishes to copyright his or her work can he or she do so at a pan-
European level, and, if so, is this form of copyright fully respected in other states including the US?

Given the fact that many European films which receive either national or EU assistance are art-house
productions or near-equivalents, does the Commission believe it would be helpful in terms of improved
access and larger audiences if English subtitles were added to the sub-titles of the language of the host
country, i.e. that a German film shown in Italy would have both English and Italian subtitles?

Finally, does the Commission believe that European films which might otherwise have some commercial
success are being crowded-out by the dominance of Hollywood distributors, and, if so, what remedies does
the Commission believe might be applicable?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/235

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

The Honourable Member has asked what the Union is doing through the MEDIA Programme to improve
the quality of scripts for European films. The Union, through the MEDIA programmes, has adopted a
series of measures aimed at supporting the European film industry, focusing on certain key activities, such
as training, development, distribution and promotion. One of the areas specifically addressed by the
training action line is that of scriptwriting. In respect of copyright, at an international level, all parties to
the Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works, are bound by the provisions of
Article 5, which states that: ‘Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under
this Convention,
in countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights which their
respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the rights specially granted by
this Convention’. The Convention applies to all the Member States, and other countries, including the
United States, that are parties to the Convention.

The Commission is currently preparing a proposal for a new generation of programmes for the European
audiovisual sector. The issue of subtitling is one of the issues being discussed as a means of promoting
cultural diversity. However, this question concerns the use of subtitling as opposed to dubbing. Requests
can be made under the current scheme for subtitling in English. The Commission does not however
consider that the inclusion of English subtitles would have a positive effect on circulation.

The Commission is concerned by the limited circulation of non-national European films outside their own
territory and to this end has set up a number of different schemes to address this problem. The MEDIA
Programme supports the distribution and broadcasting of audiovisual works (fiction, documentary,
animation, and interactive programmes) and of European films in cinemas, on video, on DVD and on
television.
to networks of cinemas presenting a common strategy for the
promotion and marketing of European films.

It also provides support

The MEDIA Plus programme includes schemes both for cinema films (schemes for distributors (cid:1)
automatic and selective support (cid:1) for sales agents and for exhibitors) and for television and DVD and
Video.

In respect of distributors: The aim of the ‘automatic’ support scheme is to encourage and support the
wider transnational distribution of recent non-national European films by providing funds to operators for
further investment in such films based upon their record of generating an audience for European films.
This also encourages the development of links between the production and distribution sector thus
improving the competitive position of non-national European films. The ‘selective’ support scheme also
aims to encourage the establishment and consolidation of co-operation networks between European
distributors, as well as co-operation between distributors, Sales Agents and/or producers.

In respect of Sales Agents: The aim of the support scheme is to encourage and support the wider
transnational distribution of recent European films by providing funds to sales agents, based upon their
performance on the market, for further reinvestment in new European films.

In respect of exhibitors: The aim is to encourage the networking of European première cinemas and the
screening of non-domestic European films by these cinemas.

In respect of television: The scheme is aimed at European companies, whose activities contribute to the
promotion and the circulation of European television programmes produced by independent companies
within and outside the Community. It encourages co-operation between broadcasters on the one hand and
independent European distributors and producers on the other hand. The support scheme’s aim is to
encourage independent production companies to produce works (fiction, documentary and animated films)
involving no less than two broadcasters, preferably more, who participate or co-operate in several Member
States and belong to different language zones.

C 78 E/236

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

In respect of DVD and Video: The scheme is aimed at European companies, whose activities contribute to
the strengthening of the distribution sector for European works on media intended for private use. It
encourages publishers to invest in digital technology and the promotion of non-domestic European works
on video and DVD.

(2004/C 78 E/0238)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3178/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Damage caused by the Prestige: fresh evaluation and the Solidarity Fund

On 9 October, the EP authorised the Commission to mobilise the Solidarity Fund at the urging of the
Italian, Portuguese and Spanish Governments in respect of earthquakes, forest fires and the Prestige disaster
respectively. The Commission proposed percentages in terms of the requests submitted by the various
governments and their own damage estimates, namely EUR 436 million in the case of the ‘Prestige’; Spain
was awarded EUR 8,6 million, while Italy was awarded EUR 46,7 million and Portugal, EUR 48,5 million.

The Portuguese Government had submitted an initial estimate of EUR 509 million, and later submitted an
additional estimate raising this to EUR 718 million. The Spanish Government, however, despite the fact
that the Prestige disaster is not over, stuck to its initial estimate, made a mere two months after the disaster
had begun, showing no concern thereafter to make any supplementary evaluation of the damage.

Only five days after the EP approved these subsidies, the Spanish Government announced, in the Chamber
of Deputies, an evaluation which put the damage at EUR 700 million, EUR 264 million more than the
figure supplied to the Commission. If the Spanish authorities had submitted a supplementary estimate to
the Commission which reflected this revision, the Solidarity Fund allocation for Spain, under identical
conditions, would have been EUR 13,86 million, i.e. EUR 5 234 million more than was actually awarded.

Has the Spanish Government, like the Portuguese Government, submitted a further evaluation in addition
to its initial request?

Would the Commission be prepared to review the amount granted to Spain, should the Spanish
Government submit a supplementary estimate, so that those hit by the ‘Prestige’ disaster could receive the
aid they rightly deserve from the Solidarity Fund?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

The initial Spanish application to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund for the Prestige disaster was
received on 13 January 2003, containing preliminary estimates of the costs for cleaning up the coastline,
cleaning and restoration of
the Atlantic Islands national park, operations at sea and other related
operations. The estimates did not include those relating to finding a permanent solution for the wreck.

Further information was transmitted by the Spanish authorities on 13 May 2003, 13 June 2003 and
17 June. It was on the basis of this information that the Commission proposed a grant to Spain under the
Solidarity Fund that was based on the latest
in the
explanatory memorandum to draft amending budget, the original figure had to be adjusted to exclude
certain indirect damage, on the one hand and, to include the estimated cost of the permanent solution to
the wreck on the other hand.

figures received. As explained in more detail

The Commission has no knowledge on how the estimate for damage presented to the Spanish parliament
of EUR 700 million was calculated, nor whether this amount contains any damage not eligible under the
Solidarity Fund.