WRITTEN QUESTION E-3372/03 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission. Denmark's prospects of renegotiating Protocol 16.
Date: 2003-11-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, European treaties, Protocol (EU), acquisition of property, derogation from EU law, secondary residence

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/273

The reactions to the Green Paper have shown clearly that the nuclear factor remains an inseparable part of
the debate. Nuclear power accounts for around 35 % of electricity production in the Union thus reducing
its dependence on fossil fuels.

The use of nuclear power to produce electricity is entirely a matter for the Member States. Each
Member State retains its sovereignty in relation to the means to be used to achieve security of energy
supply. A major lesson of the debate on the Green Paper as regards nuclear energy is that the future of
that sector depends on finding a clear and unequivocal answer to the question of the processing of
radioactive waste and that a high level of nuclear safety must be ensured.

The Union has committed itself on a number of occasions,
in
December 2001, to maintaining a high level of nuclear safety on its territory. For this reason, the
Commission adopted, on 30 January 2003, two proposals for Council directives in the field of nuclear
safety and management of radioactive waste (2). These two proposals, the legal basis of which is the
Euratom Treaty, are currently being discussed within the Council. In accordance with Article 31 of that
Treaty, the opinion of Parliament has been sought.

including the Laeken Summit

The approach adopted by the Commission in its two legislative proposals is legal and political rather than
normative. The intention is to take internationally agreed principles and give them force of Community
law. The implementation of these principles within a Community framework will make it possible to
ensure that all nuclear operators obey the same rules and are subject to the same constraints. Such an
approach will help to ensure healthy competition on the internal electricity market.

(1) COM(2002) 321 final.
(2) COM(2003) 32 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0274)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3372/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Denmark’s prospects of renegotiating Protocol 16

Several countries (cid:1) Sweden, Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Cyprus etc. (cid:1) expressed their
desire during accession negotiations for a similar arrangement
to that which Denmark has under
Protocol 16 concerning the acquisition of holiday homes. They were all refused a permanent arrangement
such as Denmark has but were granted temporary transitional arrangements as set out, for example, in
draft law L 222 on enlargement to the east, pages 26 and 27. Will the Commission say whether any
countries have already argued, or are expected to argue during the forthcoming renegotiation of the
protocols, that it is unacceptable for Denmark to have a permanent arrangement while they themselves
were refused one?

Further to my question concerning the legal implications of ratification of the EU’s draft constitution, what
is the Commission’s assessment of Denmark’s prospects of renegotiating Protocol 16 at the Intergovern-
mental Conference so as to retain its derogation concerning the right of EU citizens to purchase holiday
homes in Denmark?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Danish restrictions on the purchase of second homes are the only country specific exception to the free
movement of capital within the Community. The Protocol on the acquisition of property in Denmark is an
integral part of the EC Treaty, following the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union, and, unlike

C 78 E/274

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

certain other temporary exceptions, such as transitional measures granted in the context of accession
negotiations, there are no time limits set on its duration. As the Honourable Member is aware, any changes
in this particular provision would require a modification to the EC Treaty agreed by all Member States,
including Denmark.

As regards Candidate Countries, the Treaty of Accession to the European Union 2003, signed in Athens on
16 April 2003 and currently being ratified by Member States, includes a special permanent arrangement
for Malta for the purchase of secondary residences (Protocol No 6) as well as transitional arrangements for
other candidates.

The Honourable Member may already know that the Commission participates in the group of legal experts
of the Intergovernmental Conference whose task is, among others, to adapt the Treaties’ Protocols to the
new legal environment provided for by the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. In this
sense, the Commission can confirm that, following the adaptation, the content of the aforementioned
Protocol is substantially the same.

(2004/C 78 E/0275)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3378/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: European financial assistance to European contact points

On 29 September 2003, the Commission’s Directorate-General for Press and Communication informed the
host institutions of the Info-Points Europe and the Carrefours throughout the European Union of the
decision that, as from 1 January 2004, operating subsidies to these regional European information centres
would cease. In practice this means that each centre will lose some EUR 20 000 per annum in subsidy.

The importance of these European information centres would be hard to overestimate, and in the present
political context it would even be fair to describe them as essential. The forthcoming historic enlargement
of the EU and the June 2004 European elections are just two of the many European developments about
which the public need to be informed in their own region. If the Commission wishes to encourage public
involvement in European affairs, it should also ensure that the requisite information is made available.

Without the European financial support on which they depend, the European contact points cannot
possibly survive, and this will mean that the gulf between the European institutions and the citizens of the
EU will grow yet further.

1. What are the grounds
Communication to cut the operating subsidy to the European contact points?

the unexpected and ill-considered decision by DG Press and

for

2. Will the Commission revoke the decision by DG Press and Communication and investigate how extra
European funding can be provided for the Info-Points and Carrefours, in view of their great importance to
the public in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-3007/03 by Mr Santini (1)

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 191.