WRITTEN QUESTION E-3219/03 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Recognition of fire regulations in the EU.
Date: 2003-10-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, United Kingdom, fire protection, harmonisation of standards, marketing, mutual recognition principle, technical standard, textile industry

C 78 E/240

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0242)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3201/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject: Search at the ‘Il Giornale’ head office in Rome: violation of freedom of the press in Italy

On Friday 17 October 2003, the head office of the leading Italian daily newspaper ‘Il Giornale’, which is
investigating the purchase of Telekom Serbia by Telecom Italia, was searched by order of the Court of
Perugia. At the end of this search, which was carried out by the police and lasted a good 13 hours, a large
quantity of material belonging to the journalist Gian Marco Chiocci was confiscated. It appears that the
only crime he is alleged to have committed is that of defaming a Rome judge in the press.

Does the Commission not consider the decisions taken to represent a blatant violation of the freedom of
the press and the freedom of expression?

Does it not feel that these decisions violate the recommendations made by the Council of Ministers of the
EU to the Member States on 8 March 2003, according to which interception, surveillance, searches and
confiscation should not be used to circumvent the right of journalists not to reveal their sources?

Does it not consider the decisions by the Court of Perugia to run contrary to the renowned Goodwin
ruling handed down by the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which gave legal substance to
journalists’ right to the professional secret.

Does it not consider the decisions by the Court of Perugia also to run contrary to ruling No 33400/96 of
the Strasbourg court, which deems searches conducted with the intention of discovering journalists’
sources to be an outright violation of the freedom of expression?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2003)

The search carried out at the head office of ‘Il Giornale’ by order of the Perugia public prosecutor’s office is
the sole responsibility of the national authorities responsible for organising the justice system in Italy.
Given that Community law is not at issue here, the Commission takes the view that it is not in a position
to answer the questions raised by the Honourable Member.

It should be noted that anybody who considers that his fundamental rights have been infringed may take
the matter to the European Court of Human Rights once all domestic legal remedies have been exhausted.

(2004/C 78 E/0243)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3219/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Recognition of fire regulations in the EU

(31 October 2003)

With regard to the fireproofing of fabrics there seems to be confusion over the recognition of different
standard marks from EU countries.

Would the Commission confirm that the British standard mark number for the fireproofing of fabric,
BS5867 PART 2B, is equivalent to the French mark number M1?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/241

Is the British standard mark legally acceptable in France?

Could the Commission give details of the legislation within the EU that concerns this?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

There is currently no Community legislation harmonising the standards for the fireproofing of fabrics.
Accordingly, Member States are free to adopt their own standards. However, the free movement of fabrics
between Member States is nevertheless assured to a considerable extent by the principle of mutual
recognition, derived from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, in particular on the basis of
Articles 28 and following of the EC Treaty.

This principle obliges a Member State to permit
lawfully
manufactured or sold in another Member State unless it can show that the product does not afford a
degree of protection of a legitimate public interest equivalent to that guaranteed by its own legislative or
administrative requirements.

the placing on its market of a product

Therefore, if the French authorities decide not to permit the placing on the market in France of products
complying with the British standard,
it is for them to justify such refusal by demonstrating that the
products do not afford sufficient protection of the consumer.

A lack of appropriate justifications may entail the breach of the EC Treaty as interpreted by the Court of
Justice.

(2004/C 78 E/0244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3231/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject: Allocation of subsidies under the fifth and sixth framework programmes

The projects funded with help from the fifth and sixth framework programmes are generally held in high
esteem. They are often innovative and the mere requirement that the partners/bodies working together
must come from several different countries generates positive synergy which can help to create
Community value.

Unfortunately, reports of problems have also come to my attention, problems which, in some cases, are so
serious as to undermine the positive impact of programmes and projects. In many cases, these problems
lead to disillusionment and a reluctance to submit fresh proposals.

Above all, the complaints concern the administration of the programmes:

(cid:1) The administrative arrangements are complex, anything but transparent and require the investment of

an unreasonable amount of time, money and effort.

(cid:1) In the case of smaller bodies, the administrative burden has become an insurmountable obstacle and
the percentage of funding granted to cover overheads is too low. Unfortunately, this also applies to
many bodies from the applicant countries.

(cid:1) In some cases, additional information is requested at the very last moment before a time-limit runs

out. This results in enormous delays in processing applications and making payments.

(cid:1) Proposals for projects seem to be assessed in an arbitrary manner. High quality in terms of substance
and presentation does not necessarily lead to approval, whereas low quality does not always result in
rejection.

Naturally enough, I realise that meticulous procedures are needed in order to prevent fraud and the misuse
of Community funds.