WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2877/97 by Glenys KINNOCK to the Commission. Coherence of Commission policies with Council Resolution of 18 June 1992 on the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in third countries by Community-based manufacturers
C 82/150 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 3. 98 Since the launching of the MEDIA II programme, the Commission has made sure that positive discrimination measures in favour of projects submitted by companies registered in Member States with a low audiovisual production capacity are systematically applied. Furthermore, specific information and training sessions targeted at potential applicants from those Member States are organised. As a result the MEDIA II programme has received an increasing amount of proposals from Member States with a low audiovisual production capacity. It should also be stressed that the relative percentage of projects selected is always higher than that of projects submitted (on average 30% of selected projects as compared to 25% of applications). In the particular case of the two Member States mentioned (i. e. Greece and Portugal), the ratio between projects submitted to projects selected corresponds to the overall average for all Member States of 10 to 12%. In accordance with the Council Decision, the selection criteria on the basis of which all projects are assessed are those announced in the guidelines of each call for proposals, which in turn have been approved by the members of the committee prior to publication. In order to ensure fair treatment for all projects submitted, the readers or assessors involved in advising the Commission during the selection procedure are chosen on the basis of their knowledge and expertise to provide quality assessments of the scripts submitted in their original language. As far as the experts serving on individual panels of experts are concerned, these are chosen from lists submitted by members of the MEDIA committee to the Commission and are consulted on a rotating basis. (1) OJ L 321, 30. 12. 1995. (98/C 82/239) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2877/97 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (1 September 1997) Subject: Coherence of Commission policies with Council Resolution of 18 June 1992 on the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in third countries by Community-based manufacturers Can the Commission confirm that the Danish baby food company, MILCO, violated the WHO Code of 1981 on the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in its operations in Bangladesh, and, as a consequence, has acted inconsistently with the Council Resolution of 18 June 1992 on the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in third countries by Community-based manufacturers (1)? Is it the case that the Commission offers tax rebates to companies such as MILCO, promoting breastmilk substitutes outside the EU, even when these activities are in breach of the WHO Code of 1981 and the Council Resolution of 18 June 1992? If so, does the Commission not agree that its approach is wholly inconsistent with the International Code and the Council Resolution, and that these tax rebates should be immediately stopped? (1) OJ C 172, 8. 7. 1992, p. 1. Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (22 September 1997) The Commission, in line with the Council Resolution of 18 June 1992, has instructed its delegations in third countries to serve as contact points for the authorities in order that any complaints or criticisms with respect to the marketing practices of a manufacturer based in the Community could be notified to them. No such complaints have been received to date from Bangladesh. The Commission therefore cannot confirm any statements or reports of inappropriate marketing practices by Community-based companies in this country. Further the Commission would stress that in the absence of any such complaint on the subject, the case evoked by the Honourable Member in the second part of her question is not applicable