WRITTEN QUESTION E-0284/04 by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission. BEUC.
Date: 2004-02-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: administrative expenditure, consumer movement, consumer protection, publication, support policy

C 78 E/948

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The information accompanying the CE marking shows the performance of the product, or how good the
product is in relation to the relevant characteristic covered by the harmonised technical specification. The
CE marking is a single mark necessary to access freely the Internal Market. A product may bear voluntary
marks only if they provide an added value and are not liable to cause confusion with the CE marking.
Initiatives taken in the voluntary certification field should be exclusively market driven. The Commission
does not intend to intervene in this field, unless quality marks were to impair the Internal Market.

(2004/C 78 E/1003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0284/04

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject: BEUC

The European consumers’ organisation BEUC regularly publishes expensive brochures printed in four
colours on glossy paper, which promote the Commission’s proposals in the field of consumer protection.
For example, I am aware of the brochures on the Consumer Credit Directive and the Directive on health
information on foodstuffs.

1.

Does the Commission subsidise these publications from the EU budget?

2. What institutional funding does the BEUC receive from the EU budget?

Does the Commission believe that it is the BEUC’s task to support the Commission’s proposals with

3.
such forms of advertising?

4. What view does the Commission take of the allegation, made by Dr Beate Kohler-Koch on 15 May
2003 in Berlin, that the consumer associations are being exploited for the Commission’s public relations
work?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission does not grant any specific Community funding for the production of publications

1.
by the BEUC.

Every year, following a call for proposals, the Commission awards operational grants to European
2.
consumer organisations. This leads to a greater involvement of these organisations in Community policies,
one of the three key objectives of the Strategy for Consumer Policy (2002-2006) which is supported by
the Parliament. Moreover, this form of financial support has a clear legal basis in the provision for
financing consumer-oriented activities (1). This total funding cannot exceed 50 % of the expenditure for
eligible activities.

The total Community funding to be awarded to the BEUC under these operational grants amounts to
EUR 1 172 790 in 2004.

Furthermore, the Commission regularly, and following a call for proposals, grants subsidies to specific
projects which aim to promote consumer interests in Member States (Articles 2 C and 6 of Decision
No 283/1999 and action 18 of Decision No 20/2004, aforementioned).

Following the call for proposals published in September 2002 (2), the project ‘European Consumer Law
Group’ submitted by the BEUC was selected (Community contribution requested: EUR 56 422,79).

The subsidies awarded will be published shortly on the Internet site of the Directorate-General for Health
and Consumer Protection.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/949

There is no connection between the subsidies awarded by the Commission and the statement of
3.
views of the BEUC. The Commission’s objective is to enable consumers to promote their interests in order
to be on an equal footing with the other forces in civil society represented at Community level. One of the
criteria for awarding subsidies is the widest possible dissemination of the results of the activities and
projects supported, without bias as to their content.

The statement of views of the BEUC, its proposals for objectives and its work programme are adopted by
the General Assembly of its members. The BEUC is a federation of 36 national and independent consumer
organisations in Europe, including the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (VZVB) and the
Stiftung Warentest.

The Commission was unaware of either the remarks made by Dr Beate Kohler-Koch or the criticism

4.
levelled against it.

(1) Decision No 283/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 January 1999 establishing a
general framework for Community activities in favour of consumers, OJ L 34, 9.2.1999 for the years 1999 to 2003
and Decision No 20/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 December 2003 establishing a
general framework for financing Community actions in support of consumer policy for the years 2004 to 2007
(Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 5, 09.01.2004.

(2) OJ C 218, 14.9.2002.

(2004/C 78 E/1004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0300/04

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Financing for the new Athens airport

By decision E (96) 1356 of 23 May 1996 the Commission granted the company AIA SA funding of
EUR 250 million to build the new Athens airport at Spata.

The company subsequently (on 14 June 1996) signed a contract for the airport project with Hochtief AG,
formerly called Gebr. Helfmann of Essen (Germany), for a sum of EUR 1,8 billion. In its turn this company
set up a branch in Athens which is not entered on the register of limited companies. Hochtief has
concluded a whole series of contracts with other firms in order to sub-contract the construction work.

Hochtief has a 45 % share in AIA SA, the Greek State 55 %, although Hochtief controls the board of
directors with 5 out of 9 directors. The Commission’s decision E (96) 1356 named AIA SA as the entity
responsible for carrying out the project. According to Article 12.2.6. of Greek Law No 2338/95, AIA SA
cannot be considered as a body governed by public law, and Article 10 of Regulation No 1164/94 (1) states
that funding may be granted only to bodies governed by public law.

Spat airport has also set extremely high airport taxes, because of its dominant position in air traffic to and
from Greece. This prompted a number of passengers to lodge complaints with the Commission in July
2002.

Can the Commission say how it justifies granting the funding directly to a limited company rather

1.
than to a body governed by public law.

Can it say why it has not yet responded to the complaints concerning the high airport taxes charged

2.
by Spata airport.

3.
Can it say which of the two companies (cid:1) Hochtief AG or Hellas SA (cid:1) issued the invoice for the
payment of EUR 1,8 billion to the company AIA, which was subsequently submitted to the Commission
to justify the funding of EUR 250 million?

(1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994, p. 1.