WRITTEN QUESTION E-0249/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Private Eye.
Date: 2004-02-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commissioner, damages, defamation, legal action, serial publication

C 78 E/946

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

In view of the seriousness of this state of affairs, in a region and a Member State where unemployment is
constantly rising,
it is essential that the Commission and the Portuguese government take all possible
measures to prevent yet another multinational from closing its operations in Portugal and, possibly,
relocating to another European country.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Were any Community funds received by the firm Brax Portuguesa, Fábrica de Confecções, Lda. of
Aldeia Nova, Serzedo, Vila Nova de Gaia in Portugal? If so, can the Commission provide details?

2. Was any financial support granted by the EU to the parent company or any of its branches? If so, can

the Commission provide details?

3. What measures does the Commission intend to take to put an end to the constant relocations of

multinationals and the resulting unemployment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2004/C 78 E/1001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0249/04

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

(3 February 2004)

Subject: Private Eye

A recent edition of the UK satirical publication, Private Eye, contained an apology to Commissioner
Kinnock for a story it had printed. The publication also claimed it had paid Commissioner Kinnock
substantial damages.

Could the Commission state how much money Commissioner Kinnock received in damages from Private
Eye?

Could the Commission verify that Commissioner Kinnock is taking legal action against another
publication, The Sprout, concerning the same article? If so has the Commissioner received any damages
from The Sprout?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Private Eye and Sprout published allegations which were seriously defamatory and, consequently,
Mr Kinnock, Vice-President of the Commission, sued both publications seeking a public apology, damages
and costs. After legal representations, both publications printed apologies saying that
they ‘accept
unreservedly that there is and was no basis for allegations against Mr Kinnock’ and ‘Without exception we
withdraw the allegations and criticisms of Mr Kinnock and apologise to him’.

They also said that ‘In recognition of the seriousness of the allegations against Mr Kinnock and the
complete absence of any justification for them, we have agreed to make a substantial payment in damages
to Mr Kinnock’.

Payment for damages and costs has been received from both publications.

It is Mr Kinnock’s custom to use damages paid for defamation for payments to charities of his choice and,
naturally, is continuing in this case. It is not his custom to publicise the sums received or the names of
those charities although, sometimes, the charity payment has been publicised by others.