WRITTEN QUESTION P-0810/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. Mozambique — Nampula — murder of a missionary.
Date: 2004-03-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Mozambique, public safety, trade in organs

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/537

procedures were, for the most part, established by the head of the media company, who was at the same
time Prime Minister, and hence faced with an obvious conflict of interest. In the restricted television
segment of the market, the Mediaset company is in actual fact the main if not exclusive beneficiary of the
law. The beneficiary’s involvement in the decision-making procedures of the provision or act constitutes a
serious violation of competition law if it occurs, as was undoubtedly the case, ‘in a way which may be
regarded as having affected their outcome, at least where its position on the market is significantly affected
by the measure’ (conclusions of Advocate-General Jacobs, of 21 March 1991, Extramet).

It is also a serious violation of competition law for the company to seek, through its representatives, to
have measures adopted in its favour, with a view to strengthening its dominant position or excluding third
parties from the market (Milan Court of Appeal, 9 to 13 July 1998 and judgment of 22 March (cid:1) 16 June
2000), as was clearly the case here. Conflicts of interest are also extremely prejudicial to the organisations
in which they arise.

Will the Commission explain why it has so far refrained from adopting any measures to protect the media
market in Italy, which has clearly been seriously undermined by the above violations of competition law,
given that the Commission’s failure to act could also, in this particular case, result in it being impossible to
prosecute these violations, thereby causing considerable prejudice to the Community and national markets
and finances?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Following a complaint, the Commission already considered the subject matter of the question and
concluded that there were insufficient grounds to prolong its investigation of the case, given that there was
no indication of a possible infringement of the Community law of competition.

As regards the claim that participation of the undertaking in the decision-making procedures of the law
represents a violation of competition law in view of a conflict of interest, the Commission considers the
following: the Community law of competition does not include any reference to the conflict of interest,
therefore the Commission does not have the legal means to deal with a situation of conflict of interest in
itself, independently of its effect on the market. The Commission, however, can deal with a situation of
abuse of dominance or of State aid.

However, regarding dominance, the mere fact that Mediaset benefited under Law No 489 of 8 August
1994 from tax legislation which is not aimed at Mediaset only, or even at radio and television companies
only, cannot be described as an abuse of a dominant position.

In addition, in the case in question, the conflict of interest is supposed to have altered competition by
means of legislation granting tax relief. Distortions of competition due to advantages granted through State
resources are assessed under the State aid rules of the Treaty. It is consolidated case law that article 87
‘does not distinguish between the measures of State intervention concerned by reference to their causes or
aims but defines them in relation to their effects’. What the Commission has to consider is whether a
the
measure fulfils the Treaty definition of State aid. The elements referred to in the question of
Honourable Member do not show that this is the case and the possibility that a conflict of interest may
have played a part in the drafting of such a measure cannot alter this assessment.

(2004/C 88 E/0549)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0810/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Mozambique (cid:1) Nampula (cid:1) murder of a missionary

(8 March 2004)

On 24 February Doraci Edinger, a 53-year-old Brazilian Lutheran Church missionary (for the Igreja
Evangélica de Confissão Luterano no Brasil), who was involved in school- and hospital-building projects
and in well-sinking projects to supply water to the region, was found dead in the flat where she had been
living, in Nampula.

C 88 E/538

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Given that the motive does not appear to have been robbery, rumours have emerged that this brutal crime
was linked to the organ-trafficking apparently taking place in the region.

The autopsy has shown that the missionary was killed by blows from a hammer. Five suspects have
already been detained in connection with her death.

Within the religious community, and especially among the Catholic nuns who have spoken out against the
organ-trafficking, the fear of reprisals is mounting.

The Commission:

(cid:1) what information does it have about these matters;

(cid:1) what measures has it taken or will it take to guarantee the security of the religious and missionaries

working in Nampula, especially those who are Union citizens?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The Commission is aware of the murder of the Brazilian nun Doraci Edinger and contacted the Embassy of
Brazil
in this respect, which, on the basis of the available information, considers that there is no
connection with alleged organ trafficking cases.

Regarding the nuns’ safety, although this matter falls outside the Commission’s competence and can be
best addressed through interventions from the respective Member State Embassies, the Commission will
examine within the framework of the EU co-ordination and EU-Mozambique political dialogue the most
appropriate way to raise this issue with the government.

The Honourable Member can be assured that the Commission, within the limits of its competence, will
maintain contact with the Attorney’s General office and the Human Rights League and follow the progress
of the investigation.

(2004/C 88 E/0550)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0813/04

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject: Agri-environmental payments

On 5 February 2004 I had the honour to host a conference on agri-environmental programmes, ‘How to
improve agri-environmental measures for biodiversity and sustainable use’, organised by IUCN.

During that conference critical remarks were made about the calculation of agri-environmental payments
as based on the current rules of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1).

Has the Commission considered that the current basis for agri-environmental payments, as laid down

1.
in the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, is not satisfactory in all situations?

Has the Commission considered proposing to base agri-environmental payments in the future on the

2.
delivery of public goods?

3.
Has the Commission considered steps in this respect in the context of preparing the new Rural
Development Regulation and in the WTO negotiations on the rules for the Green Box of the Agreement
on Agriculture?

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.