WRITTEN QUESTION E-0269/04 by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Consumer credit.
Date: 2004-02-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: approximation of laws, consumer credit, consumer policy, consumer protection, indebtedness

C 84 E/190

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

The Norwegian environmental organisation Bellona recently reported on safety problems and financial
difficulties at Sosnovyi Bor. According to Bellona, the power station’s spent nuclear fuel stores were full
years ago, radioactive emissions into the Gulf of Finland are an everyday occurrence, embezzlement of
funds and thefts of equipment have occurred at
the power station, safety regulations have been
systematically disregarded, and the plant’s fire safety is poor. Bellona states that Finland’s radiation safety
authorities have played down the seriousness of the safety situation at Sosnovyi Bor. It has become more
difficult to obtain reliable information about safety at Sosnovyi Bor as its management has prevented
access to the region, using the threat of terrorism as a pretext.

Sosnovyi Bor nuclear power station is a ticking time-bomb. A group of NGOs based in Russia and the
Baltic region has accordingly launched a campaign in favour of the power station’s closure.

Nuclear safety is one of the priorities in relations between the EU and Russia. What is the Commission’s
view of the safety situation at Sosnovyi Bor? What has the Commission done to eliminate the safety risks
there? Have Tacis funds been allocated to Sosnovyi Bor? Has the issue of safety at Sosnovyi Bor been
discussed as part of the EU-Russia energy dialogue? Has the Commission, at Parliament’s request, explored
the possibilities of setting up an international environmental and nuclear non-proliferation supervisory
authority to coordinate assistance in dealing with radioactive waste and environmental problems caused by
it in Russia?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to oral question No H-39/04 put by
Mrs Aaltonen (1) at the February 2004 part-session.

(1) Written answer of 10.2.2004.

(2004/C 84 E/0231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0269/04

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject: Consumer credit

In its various forms (personal loans, assigned credit, permanent credit, credit cards, etc.), consumer credit
accounted in 2003 for more than EUR 510 billion, or 13 % of household consumption in the euro zone.

Since 1987, when it was established, the sector has expanded spectacularly; new types of services have
given rise to increasingly diverse national laws, so that the legal framework needs to be brought up to date.
In this context, the Commission’s efforts to harmonise Member States’ legal provisions are warmly to be
welcomed.

However, although this type of credit can help to encourage consumption, it may also, if poorly managed,
increase the indebtedness of many households which have fallen victim to the crisis and can thus even
play a proactive role, contributing to the economic decline by holding back consumption at the wrong
moment.

Inadequate protection of consumers in the Commission proposal caused the report to be rejected in
plenary and to be referred back to committee because Parliament felt that it did not meet current needs.

In the face of such a barrage of criticism, is the Commission prepared to alter its position?

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/191

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission is pleased with the Honourable Member’s comment that the harmonisation measures
taken in the area of consumer credit are to be welcomed. These measures are part of the Commission’s
policy in the area of consumer protection and are in line with its strategy for 2002-2006 (1).

With regard to the first point made by the Honourable Member, indebtedness is indeed a concern within
the EU, and the Commission shares this concern. Although the proposal for a Directive is not primarily
designed to tackle indebtedness, it contains provisions which may help to do so. It is intended to set high
standards for consumer information before, during and after the conclusion of credit agreements, which
will help the consumer to avoid indebtedness, and to lay down rules on awarding loans (for example, the
obligation for the lender to make sure that the customer is solvent).

As for the Honourable Member’s comment on the procedure in Parliament, the Commission is pleased that
Parliament has confirmed in plenary that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market should
proceed with a review of the proposal and deliver an opinion on it.

The Commission is pleased with the in-depth discussions under way in Parliament and is awaiting the
debate and the vote in plenary, currently scheduled for the second part-session in March 2004.
The Commission intends to submit an amended proposal as soon as Parliament has adopted its
amendments at first reading.

(1) COM(2002) 208 final (cid:1) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (cid:1) Consumer Policy Strategy 2002-2006.

(2004/C 84 E/0232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0278/04

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject: Problems affecting contract negotiations under the Sixth Framework Programme

The first round of contract negotiations under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research (FP 6) is now
fully under way. The negotiations are proving very difficult and the initial reports from project
coordinators are unusually critical. During the negotiations, scientific officers are reportedly using rules
different to those announced at the information meetings held when FP 6 was launched. The result is
growing uncertainty regarding the purpose of
the new instruments, uncertainty which was already
considerable at the start. Many groups are now giving serious thought to ignoring FP 6 and concentrating
exclusively on national programmes.

Is the Commission aware of the problems emerging in connection with the first round of contract

1.
negotiations under FP 6?

Can the Commission state what rules governing the conclusion of contracts are now being employed

2.
and why these rules differ from those originally announced?

Are the rules now being employed consistent with those agreed between the Council and Parliament

3.
and laid down in FP 6?

4. What steps has the Commission taken, or what steps does it plan to take, to deal with the problems
outlined above?