WRITTEN QUESTION P-1605/99 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Extension of the legal basis for Community aid.
20. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 170 E/49 Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (27 October 1999) Council Directive 89/0552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid 1. down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities was amended by Directive 97/0036/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 30 June 1997. Article 10 (1) of the Directive is worded as follows: Television advertising and teleshopping shall be readily recognisable as such and kept quite separate from other parts of the programme service by optical and/or acoustic meansí. This does not exclude the simultaneous transmission of a programme and television advertising. However, a partial occupation of the screen by advertising would only be permissible when such advertising is clearly recognisible as such and clearly separated from the programme. It goes without saying that such advertising must meet all the requirements of the Directive with regard to television advertising, in particular the time constraints laid down in Article 11 and 18. So-called ávirtual advertisingí is not prohibited by the Directive. The Directive covers all forms of 2. television advertising, defined in Article 1 (c) as áany form of announcement broadcast whether in return for payment or for similar considerationí. The Directive also covers sponsorship of television programmes, which is subject to specific conditions. Virtual advertising is a relatively new phenomenon which, depending on the particular circumstances, could fall within the definition of television advertising or of sponsorship. It should be noted that surreptitious advertising is clearly forbidden by Article 10(4) of the Directive. Taking into account the wide variety of possibilities offered by so-called ávirtual advertisingí and the fact that practices of broadcasters in this respect are still evolving, an assessment of the legal implications with regard to the Directive is only possible on a case by case basis. According to the revised Directive a temporal separation between advertising time and the 3. and 4. programme itself is not obligatory. Article 10(1) requires only separation by optical and/or acoustic means. The Commission is not aware of the expert opinions to which the Honourable Member refers. According to Article 27 of Directive 89/0552/EEC as amended, Member States had to bring into 5. force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive not later than 30 December 1998, and to inform the Commission thereof. Germany has not notified the Commission that it has adopted all the necessary provisions to implement the Directive. Neither is the Commission in possession of any other information which could lead it to suppose that the relevant provisions have been formally adopted. The Commission therefore has sent a reasoned opinion to Germany. The Commission is therefore not in a position to make a judgement on possible amendments to the German Inter-Länder Treaty on broadcasting. (2000/C 170 E/054) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1605/99 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission Subject: Extension of the legal basis for Community aid (7 September 1999) Under existing Community legislation the only provision made for Community aid for firms facing difficulties is where the crisis arises from veterinary or phytosanitary related infections in animals requiring the products derived from such livestock to be taken off the market to prevent the symptoms of the disease being transmitted from animals to humans. Community support measures to tackle the BSE crisis were taken on this legal basis. C 170 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 6. 2000 In the case of the dioxin crisis, it was also decided at Community level to take the livestock off the market to protect public health. In this case, however, the danger to human health did not arise from a viral or bacterial infection but from human error. Nonetheless, the impact on firms is similar. Does the Commission not consider that given the scale of the dioxin crisis in Belgium and the fact that human error of this kind may also occur in other Member States, it is desirable to broaden the legal basis for Community support so that in future when there is objective evidence of disease in animals and the infected livestock and derived products are unfit for human consumption and have to be withdrawn from the market this can be regarded as sufficient grounds for Community support for the firms concerned? Will the Commission bring forward legislative proposals, if necessary, to create such a legal basis? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (8 October 1999) It is quite correct that, as Community law stands, i. e. Council Decision 90/0424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), the only provision for financial intervention by the Community covers the eradication and monitoring of the diseases listed in the annex to that Decision; the list includes bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in particular. The dioxin crisis was not caused by one of the diseases on that list but was due to human error causing pollution within the food chain. The Commissionís feeling is that, in cases of human error, the rules and regulations on liability should in principle come into play. In no circumstances can the originator of the pollution be compensated. As to the scope open to Member States for granting state aid to private individuals or businesses which have suffered adverse consequences as a result of such an error, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to consult the answer which it gave on this subject in connection with question P-1609/99 (2). (1) OJ L 224, 18. 8. 1990. (2) OJ C 27 E, 29. 1. 2000, p. 147. (2000/C 170 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1607/99 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission (7 September 1999) Subject: European funding for Russia According to reports from various international sources, at least some of the funds granted to Russia by the international community have been misappropriated to further private interests, and in some cases substantial amounts are involved; consequently there is an urgent need for effective monitoring of the use actually made of all European Union spending in Russia in recent years in the form of humanitarian aid, grants, loans on favourable terms and Community programmes under bilateral or partnership agreements. Only the other day in Parliamentís Committee on Budgetary Control it emerged that a large quantity of butter (6 750 tonnes) intended for Russia at preferential prices was illegally diverted to Poland and that the Commission records that would have provided evidence of the fraud disappeared from the Commissionís offices in Brussels (FlØchard case)