WRITTEN QUESTION P-1078/04 by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission. Political neutrality of the Info-Point Europe of the Province of Flemish Brabant.
Date: 2004-04-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU sponsorship, European Commission, European election, censorship, dissemination of information, election campaign, extreme right, information centre, political participation, politics

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/279

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission can confirm that no funding has been made available to cockle and mussel fishermen in
Northern-Ireland. They could, however, indirectly benefit from aid for port facilities and apply for vessel
modernisation to improve quality. Shellfish processors may also benefit from aid for the processing,
marketing and promotion of shellfish products. Through the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance
(FIFG) funded aquaculture schemes, eligible shellfish cultivation projects have received funding in the past.

facilities,

For Boston, the same range of grants is available under the FIFG to cockle and mussel fishermen i.e. aid for
port
for vessel modernisation to improve quality, and for the processing, marketing and
promotion of shellfish products. For assistance to be provided, however, the relevant managing authority
needs to include these measures in its programme.

(2004/C 88 E/0284)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1078/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject: Political neutrality of the Info-Point Europe of the Province of Flemish Brabant

On 15 April the Flemish Brabant Info-Point Europe is to hold a debate in the provincial government
building in Leuven on the European elections. Although five parties represented in parliament are to take
part in Flanders in the forthcoming European elections, only representatives of three parties have been
invited to participate in this debate, namely Marianne Thyssen (CD & V), Saïd El Khadraoui (SP.A) and Dirk
Sterckx (VLD). A small party, the ‘Greens’, has not been invited. Likewise the Vlaams Blok, despite the fact
that it came in third in Flanders in the last European election. Contacted by telephone and asked about
this, the Info-Point Europe said that the debate concerns Flemish Brabant and Europe. However, one of the
participants does not live in the province concerned, unlike one of the two Vlaams Blok MEPs who does
live there. The Info-Point Europe and the province of Flemish Brabant have apparently decided on a
completely arbitrary basis that the Vlaams Blok is not to be invited. The Flemish Brabant ‘Info-Point
Europe’ evidently only wishes to provide part of the information about the European Parliament.

The leaflet containing an invitation to the debate includes not only the logos of the Info-Point Europe
(which receives financial support from the Commission) and of the province, but also the European flag.

Does the Commission consider it usual for a public service partly financed by it to arbitrarily exclude
political parties from public debate?

Are Info-Points Europe not required to show political neutrality?

What measures are intended to prevent such a deplorable state of affairs?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission thanks the honourable member for his question.

The Commission would like to draw his attention to the fact that the debate ‘U stemt toch ook voor
Europa?’ was organised by the Leuven Info-Point Europe and not by the Commission.

Like the other information relays for the general public subsidised by the Commission, this Info-Point is
provided by a host structure, in this case the Province of Flemish Brabant (Provincie Vlaams-Brabant),
under an agreement with the Commission whereby the host structure and its Info-Point act in their own
name and assume full responsibility for the information they supply to the public and the measures taken
in order to do so.

C 88 E/280

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Their objectives and activities must be based on the Union’s principles and aims and respect the diversity
of opinion of its citizens. The Commission has inquired into the case at hand and has not observed any
violation of these principles.

(2004/C 88 E/0285)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1083/04

by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject: Project-related mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol

Can the Commission say which Member States have already concluded agreements with third countries on
the use of project-related mechanisms (CDM)?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Under the new Monitoring and Implementing Decision (280/2004/EC) which entered into force on
flexible
10 March 2004, Member States will have to report information on their (intended) use of
mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol from 15 March 2005 (and then every two years).

In order to obtain some information before that date, the Commission sent questionnaires to Member
States on their intentions and preparations for using the Kyoto mechanisms (Articles 6, 12 and 17 of the
Kyoto Protocol) to be answered on a voluntary basis. Information provided by Member States, however,
has been very limited and not sufficient to provide a comprehensive overview. Six Member States
(Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and the United Kingdom) have already decided in
principle to use these Kyoto mechanisms in addition to domestic policies and measures to achieve their
targets for the first commitment period. Two Member States have presented their first quantitative
estimations. A slightly more detailed summary can be found in the latest report (1) from the Commission
under Council Decision 93/389/EEC of 24 June 1993 (2) as amended by Council Decision 1999/296/EC of
26 April 1999 for a monitoring mechanism of Community greenhouse gas emissions (3).

Further information on the intended use of flexible mechanisms may, however, be given in Member States’
National Allocation Plans for the 2005-2007 emissions trading period, notably in cases where such use is
crucial for a Member State in reaching its emissions target under the Kyoto Protocol.

(1) COM(2003) 735 final.
(2) OJ L 167, 9.7.1993.
(3) OJ L 117, 5.5.1999.

(2004/C 88 E/0286)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1105/04

by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject: Raw materials

The prices of many raw materials such as aluminium, copper, coke and scrap metal, which are crucial for
a whole range of industrial production processes essential to the European economy, have risen sharply
causing production problems.