WRITTEN QUESTION No. 837/98 by Esko SEPPÄNEN The content of television programmes and freedom of expression (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)
C 370/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 12. 1999 (1999/C 370/002) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0837/98 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (26 March 1998) Subject: The content of television programmes and freedom of expression There are four independent television channels in Finland, all of which are journalistically independent of the state. One of them (Oy Yleisradio Ab) has ) for journalistic purposes and without sponsorship ) produced a series of programmes designed to promote the sale of Finnish-made products. The Commission responded by writing a letter to the Finnish Ministry of Communications prohibiting the making of such programmes. In so doing, the Commission violated journalistic freedom of expression and interfered with the content of television programmes. Does the Commission consider that its officials acted correctly in this matter, and if so, on what EU treaty does it base its view? Supplementary answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1999) Further to its reply of 5 June 1998 (1), the Commission is now in a position to provide the following information. The honourable Member should refer to the answer given by the Commission to Written Question E-931/98 from Mrs Myller and others (2). (1) OJ C 310, 15. 12. 1998. (2) OJ C 354, 19. 11. 1998, p. 42. (1999/C 370/003) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0849/98 by Marco Cellai (NI) to the Commission (26 March 1998) Subject: Appeal to the Court of Justice by the Commission According to press reports in December last year the Commission has decided to appeal to the Court of Justice with a view to bringing infringement proceedings against the Italian Government for the alleged absence in Law 236/95 of transitional arrangements to safeguard the acquired rights of language assistants (’collaboratori linguistici’, formerly known as ‘lettori’) already working in Italian universities in accordance with Presidential Decree 382/80. This move essentially ignored the meaning of the judgment passed by that Court (Section V) of 20 November 1997. The present request to bring proceedings is clearly based on confusion between the terms ‘lecturer’ and ‘lettore’. The Commission in no way indicated how the Italian Government has failed to respect the ‘acquired rights’, since the rules introduced in Law 236/95 guarantee the safeguarding of the rights acquired by the parties concerned under the previous legal framework and improve their treatment overall. In view of the above, can the Commission say: 1. whether and to what extent the Commission’s decision was influenced by articles in the press or views expressed by European members of parliament; 2. what the legal bases for the appeal are?