WRITTEN QUESTION E-0765/04 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Rating agencies and access to privileged information.
Date: 2004-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: access to information, bank, credit, dissemination of information, legal basis, type of business

C 88 E/212

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

As for Sapard, any weaknesses identified in the conferral of management audits were minor and were
addressed to the competent authorities in a letter of observations respectively and the Commission
followed up the implementation of the recommendations related to those weaknesses. The financial audits
made recommendations on the management of the Sapard euro account. In some cases the conformity
audits identified minor weaknesses which were addressed to the Candidate Countries in the form of
observations and recommendations.

(1) EDIS (Extended Decentralised Implementation System) is an accreditation process whereby the systems of the
national agencies managing pre-accession funds are accredited by the Commission in a step similar to that used for
Structural and Cohesion Funds, allowing for a waiving of the Commission’s ex ante control over tendering and
contracting (and project selection in the case of grants). Prior to accession all countries have undertaken a process
of improvement of their systems and have put forward applications to be accredited under EDIS (except in some
cases for ISPA where the legal base is changed on accession).

(2) All Acceding Countries except Cyprus and Malta, plus Bulgaria and Romania.

(2004/C 88 E/0219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0765/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Rating agencies and access to privileged information

(11 March 2004)

On the basis of what European legislation are rating agencies able to gain access to privileged information
from businesses?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

According to Article 3(a) and Article 6(3) first sub-paragraph of Directive 2003/6/EC of the Parliament and
the Council of 28 January 2003, on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse (1)), an issuer
(or a person acting on his behalf or for his account) may disclose inside information to a third party in the
normal exercise of his employment, profession or duties. The issuer must make public disclosure of this
information simultaneously or promptly except if the person receiving the information owes a duty of
confidentiality, regardless of whether such duty is based on a law, on regulations, on articles of association
or on a contract. On this basis, credit rating agencies might get access to inside information from issuers if
they owe such a duty of confidentiality.

However, as credit rating agencies are not explicitly mentioned in the above-mentioned provisions, their
right (or not) of access to inside information from issuers is left, in practice, to Member States. There is no
harmonised European legislation on this matter yet, contrary to the United States where officially
recognised credit rating agencies may officially have access to such information.

This is the reason why the Member of the Commission who was responsible for Employment and Social
Affairs stated, on 9 February 2004 in the plenary debate on the own initiative report of the European
Parliament (Rapporteur: Mr Katiforis) on credit rating agencies, that among at least four issues to be
resolved regarding credit rating agencies, ‘the legal treatment of the question of access by rating agencies to
inside information from issuers is currently unclear in Europe. There is no harmonised European
legislation, nor even any regulation at national
level. If rating agencies are to have access to inside
information from issuers, we should ensure that the same information is available to all rating agencies.
I think Mr Katiforis’ report reflects this. (…) We have to take action fast on these (…) issues. The European
Commission committed itself to that at the Oviedo European Council in April 2002. We have to respect
our commitment before new scandals occur. The European Commission will thus be able to take a
position on the subject by the summer or autumn of 2004 at the latest. Among other contributions,
Mr Katiforis’ report will be an important element to guide us’.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/213

information, which do not answer the specific criteria of the
The case of other types of confidential
definition of ‘inside information’ of Article 1 point 1 of Directive 2003/6/EC, is neither dealt with by this
Directive nor by any other piece of European legislation. Similarly, cases of businesses apart from issuers
or persons acting on their behalf or for their account are not regulated at European level.

(1) OJ L 96, 12.4.2003.

(2004/C 88 E/0220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0773/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Violation of religious freedom in Belgium

In view of the following:

(cid:1) Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

(cid:1) Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU;

(cid:1) Article 6 of the EU Treaty;

(cid:1) the International Religious Freedom Report for 2003 issued by the US Department of State;

and the fact that:

(cid:1) in Belgium foreign teachers belonging to the Assemblies of God (AOG) group used to obtain special

visas for missionaries, which meant that they did not need work permits;

(cid:1) now that special visas for missionaries no longer exist, they need a work permit, but it is not clear
what specific category of work permit is needed, so the missionaries do no know which one to apply
for and this constitutes an administrative obstacle for them;

(cid:1) the Church of the Latter-day Saints is still trying to solve the problem of how to obtain visas for its

missionaries.

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of these facts?

Can the Commission also say whether it considers the actions described as an infringement of the
fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 10 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and
that they therefore affect the essence of the rights, which are explicitly protected by Article 52 of the
Charter?

Whether it also considers that these actions are contrary to Article 6 of the EU Treaty and therefore the
principles common to all the Member States regarding respect for human and fundamental rights?

How it intends to dissuade the Kingdom of Belgium from carrying out such actions against religious
freedom?

If it does not explicitly condemn these actions, on what legal principles it bases its attitude?