WRITTEN QUESTION E-0662/04 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Efforts to adopt uniform and transparent rules on valuing the assets of financial institutions and the resistance of the EFR to the IASB.
Date: 2004-03-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accounting, bank, company with share capital, consumer information, insurance company, international standard, shareholder, standardisation

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/835

Possible solutions include altering the shape of fuel tanks and pipe nozzles to ensure that petrol and diesel
systems are entirely separated, clearer markings, and use of audio warnings.

As vehicle manufacturers and fuel suppliers work on an EU-wide basis, will the Commission take the
initiative to bring together interested parties to consider proposals for long-term solutions to the problem,
and will the Commission consider legislative measures if voluntary agreement cannot be secured?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

The Commission acknowledges the risk, as identified by the Honourable Member, of mistakes being made
by motorists when re-fuelling their vehicles at filling stations.

The Commission considered this matter in 1991, when the introduction into the market of vehicles
provided with after-treatment systems, such as catalysts, made necessary certain provisions to prevent the
use of leaded petrol in vehicles which should only accept unleaded petrol.

To this end, Council Directive 91/441/EEC of 26 June 1991 relating to measures to be taken against air
pollution by emissions from motor vehicles (1), establishes in its Annex I, that the inlet orifice of the fuel
tank of a car intended to use unleaded petrol must be so designed that it prevents filling with a petrol
pump delivery nozzle designed for leaded petrol.

Since the application of this Directive, petrol pump delivery nozzles with different diameters have been
used to refill petrol cars using unleaded petrol or leaded petrol, and so costly confusion between the fuels
being prevented.

is no longer permitted, this
Though this provision no longer has any relevance since leaded petrol
technical requirement would generally prevent a car running on unleaded petrol from being refuelled with
diesel fuel. However, it would not prevent diesel cars from being refuelled with petrol.

With respect to the possible confusion between unleaded petrol and diesel fuel the Commission will
consult all relevant stakeholders, i.e. vehicle manufacturers and fuel pump equipment manufacturers which
are subject to the Machinery Directive (2), in order to assess all the aspects of the problem and of the
practical implementation of possible solutions of a legislative or non-legislative nature.

(1) OJ L 242, 30.8.1991.
(2) Directive 98/37/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the

Member States relating to machinery, OJ L 207, 23.7.1998.

(2004/C 84 E/0929)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0662/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Efforts to adopt uniform and transparent rules on valuing the assets of financial institutions and

the resistance of the EFR to the IASB

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), consisting of 14 prominent

former
1.
industrialists, is currently drafting the uniform rules IAS 32 and IAS 39 for annual reports by businesses
in Europe, as part of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Does the Commission intend
to make these rules compulsory, as from the 2005 financial year, for all of the approximately 7 000 listed
enterprises in Europe, so that
they will be bound by uniform and thus comparable standards for
determining the value of turnover, depreciation, derivatives, options and profits?

C 84 E/836

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

2. What guarantee does the Commission have that the IAS/IFRS will adopt as a standard the most
stringent rules which currently exist in the individual EU Member States concerning the book-keeping of
enterprises and annual accounts, so that the efforts to adopt uniform rules do not result in more flexible
rules which in practice will
in some cases afford greater scope for action to the detriment of other
businesses, authorities, employees, shareholders, bondholders, suppliers and customers?

Does the Commission anticipate that the introduction of such rules will render completely impossible

3.
any repetition of such scandals as those which have occurred at Ahold and Parmalat?

Is the application of the proposed rules sufficiently public to ensure that organisations of outside
is actually

the media and public opinion can gain a genuine understanding of what

4.
stakeholders,
happening inside individual listed enterprises?

5.
Is the Commission now aware of the objections to the IASB on the part of the European Financial
Services Round Table (EFR) which was set up in March 2001 and which is frightened by the prospect that
the public will be able to perceive annual fluctuations in the results of banks and insurers?

6. What will the Commission do to ensure that, by the intended date (cid:1) 1 April 2004 (cid:1) certainty exists
regarding the introduction in the near future of IAS 32 and 39?

Source: De Volkskrant, 21 February 2004.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

At the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (Ecofin) of 15 July 2003, the Commission and Member
States confirmed their commitment to the European financial reporting strategy adopted by the Council
and the Parliament in 2002 and to high quality accounting standards for the Union. The Commission and
Member States underlined the need for international accounting standards to be adopted in the EU, as soon
as possible, for application from 1 January 2005 onwards.

the Commission adopted Commission Regulation (EC) No 1725/2003 (1)
On 29 September 2003,
endorsing into Community law all existing IAS with the exception at this stage of IAS 32 & 39 that were
being revised by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB).

The IASB has yet to finalise IAS 39, a standard on the recognition and measurement of financial
instruments. The Commission intends to examine it as soon as possible, together with IAS 32 issued in
December 2003 by the IASB. This examination will be carried out on the basis of the opinion to be
provided by the technical experts of EFRAG (2) and with the assistance of the EU Accounting Regulatory
Committee.

The Commission considers that it is particularly important for the EU to have a sound and robust
accounting standard on financial instruments in place in 2005, in order to achieve a higher degree of
comparability between companies, notably in the banking and insurance industries, to provide better
information to investors and stakeholders in general and to close possible accounting loopholes that could
lead to the manipulation of accounts.

It is important for the IASB to ensure that IAS 39 remains both theoretically sound and applicable in
practice. Both characteristics and the way they interact are at the heart of the present controversy about
IAS 39. In particular, the banking and insurance industries fear, as illustrated by the position recently taken
by the European Financial Services Round Table, that the media and the general public lack the capacity to
distinguish between real volatility due to actual economic fluctuations and ‘artificial’ accounting volatility
created by a complex financial reporting model that sometimes fits with difficulty bank’s risk management
practices. Considering the complexity of IAS 39 and the volume of transactions at stake, this fear has to be
addressed.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/837

In this context, the Commission has urged both the IASB and industry to pursue their dialogue in order to
find an appropriate solution on the two remaining controversial issues raised by IAS39, namely macro-
hedging (hedging effectiveness and hedging of core deposits) and the insurance measurement mismatch.
Accounting standard-setting is a gradual process and the preference of the Commission would be for the
IASB to find a temporary situation pending medium to long term improvements to the standards.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1725/2003 of 29 September 2003 adopting certain international accounting
standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council,
OJ L 261, 13.10.2003.
the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group.

(2)

(2004/C 84 E/0930)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0663/04

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Measures against concentrations of wolves in Finland

(3 March 2004)

Finnish Members of the European Parliament are increasingly being contacted because the danger posed by
wolves in Finland has grown. In areas bordered by small bodies of water, concentrations of wolves have
grown to such an extent that some people are even in a state of panic. There are clear indications that
numbers of wolves are increasing and that wolves are spreading into quite new areas.

The wolf stock in Finland forms part of a single stock with its counterpart in Russia, and if one bears this
in mind, the total population could be as large as 10 000. The biggest problems in Finland exist in certain
regions close to the eastern border: for example in Northern Karelia it has been proven that there are
dozens of wolves living close to human habitations. In the Ruokolahti area there is a new concentration,
which is preventing the holding of the traditional hunting dog championships there. Further north, the
increase in the number of large predators will soon put an end to reindeer farming, which is a traditional
source of livelihood there.

The view of local residents is that the existing blanket protection of wolves provided for by EU rules is
creating an impossible state of affairs. In order to make it possible to issue hunting licences in ‘exceptional
cases’ on account of the increase in numbers of wolves, it is necessary to have demonstrable proof of
problems over a long period. People are wondering how many good elkhounds have to be lost first and
whether a child has to die on the way to school before anything can be done about the situation. In a
situation where people are in a state of panic, it is not enough for hunting licences to be granted only for
the killing of ‘problem individuals’. The wolf stock ought to be controlled in such a way that wolves do not
come into people’s yards and gardens or impinge on routes between homes and schools causing fear and
real danger.

At present, unfortunately, it seems that decisions are made on the basis of information which is years old
and using only information supplied by environmental organisations, while the threat of legal action hangs
over the national authorities. Such a policy does not help people who are constantly confronted by wolves.

to question P-4034/03 (1), but would appreciate further
I have studied the Commission’s answer
clarification concerning it. What will the Commission do to ensure that the authorities are able (cid:1) and
dare (cid:1) to react quickly to a situation, ‘inter alia’ by issuing hunting licences as needs dictate?

(1) See page 136.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

As the Honourable Member knows, in joining the EU, Finland agreed to conform to the Community
legislation and rules. Several large carnivores, such as wolf, brown bear and lynx, are protected by Council