WRITTEN QUESTION E-0401/00 by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) and Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission. Impartiality of EU food monitoring.
C 330 E/152 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 At the highest levels, bobsleighing is generally a professional sport. As a rule, the bobsleighs and other equipment used are the property of bobsleigh team members or of the clubs to which they belong or of the national associations sponsoring them. In Section 1. 13. 3. 2 of its International Rules, the FIBT declares, in breach of the rights of ownership and personal rights of competing team members, clubs and national associations, that 50 cm2 on each side of a bobsleigh and the lower third of its cowling, including the surfaces of the front lateral bumpers, is FIBT property. The FIBT makes it difficult for top bobsleigh teams, clubs and national associations to find sponsors and so restricts their freedom to develop economic activity. Will the Commission therefore state whether the FIBT rules on advertising space on bobsleighs, helmets and competitorsí clothing run counter to Community case-law as it is currently evolving with regard to professional sport? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (28 March 2000) On the basis of the information provided in the Honourable Memberís question, the Commission finds it difficult to give a definitive answer. Full knowledge of the economic and legal facts and of the specific features of the sport, together with a definition of the market concerned, are needed in order to assess whether a federationís behaviour is restrictive within the meaning of the competition rules. In any case, the right to allocate advertising space is a matter for national law. Should the various national laws grant the International Bobsleighing and Tobagganing Federation (FIBT) the right to decide on the use it would be necessary to consider whether the behaviour referred to by the of advertising space, Honourable Member is the result of an agreement prohibited under Article 81 (former Article 85) of the EC Treaty or could constitute an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 (former Article 86) of the EC Treaty. The Commission does not have the information to carry out an analysis which would enable it to determine whether the behaviour referred to by the Honourable Member affects trade between Member States or whether the FIBT, on the assumption that it acts as an undertaking, holds a dominant position on a substantial part of the common market. (2000/C 330 E/172) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0401/00 by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) and Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission Subject: Impartiality of EU food monitoring (15 February 2000) Between 11 and 21 October 1998, European Union veterinary inspectors made an inspection visit to the Kola peninsula in Russia with the aim of ascertaining whether it would be possible to grant permission for reindeer meat and game to be imported into the EU from that source. According to the inspection report (XXIV/1472/98), a representative of an enterprise with an interest in imports of reindeer meat from the Kola peninsula took part in the Commissionís inspection mission. The report states that the enterprise helped to organise the journey and arranged interpreting services for meetings. Is it standard practice for representatives of commercial enterprises to participate in EU inspection missions in third countries? Is it likely to boost consumer confidence in the impartiality of the EUís food monitoring if parties with commercial interests participate in inspection missions? 21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/153 Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (20 March 2000) As indicated in the report (available on the Europa website at http://europa. eu. int/comm/dg24/), to which the Honourable Members refer, the mission team comprised two vets from the Commission, and one from the Finnish ministry of Agriculture. Two members of the team were fluent in Russian, which was the language used during the mission. It proved impossible to obtain official interpretation support for the third inspector. For these reasons, it was necessary to take exceptional measures, which fell outside normal food and veterinary office practices, to ensure the successful performance and completion of the mission. To this end, the assistance of an interpreter for the third inspector, provided through the Swedish-owned exporting company, was accepted. In addition, the mission programme was finalised with the regional, rather than the central, official veterinary services, with assistance from the Swedish exporting company. A director of that company travelled with the team to assist with travel arrangements, but he did not form part of the team and, as is made clear in the report, did not participate in any of the technical meetings during the mission. The performance of the mission, and the reporting of its findings, conclusions and recommendations, were in no way prejudiced by this arrangement. All travel and accommodation arrangements were made fully in accordance with Commission rules. The Commission is very aware of the need to ensure that consumers have confidence in the impartiality of its inspection and control activities. The findings of the mission, as is evidenced by the publication of the report, were achieved in a fully transparent and independent manner. They were accepted by the Member States in the standing veterinary committee on 10th February 1999. (2000/C 330 E/173) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0406/00 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Council (16 February 2000) Subject: Compensation for German shipping and transport firms operating on the Danube following the closing of the Yugoslav section of the Danube A number of firms in Regensburg (Germany) are specialised in transport operations from Germany to destinations below Yugoslavia on the Danube. As a result of the war in Kosovo,the destruction of bridges over the Danube, and the subsequent closure of the Yugoslav section of the Danube the business operations of these firms have come to a halt. Since these firms specialise in vey specific transport operations on the Danube, they have practically no possibility of branching out into other areas of activity. Can the Council therefore provide the following information: 1. Should these firms be regarded as victims of the Kosovo war in the same way as firms situated in Kosovo itself? 2. Are these firms eligible for financial restructuring aid to offset their losses? 3. Are these companies entitled to non-reimbursable aid for restructuring or consolidation to offset their ongoing losses and to publicly guaranteed investment aid? Reply (2 May 2000) The Council informs the Honourable Member that it is for the Commission to decide on aid granted by Member States under the provisions of Articles 87 et seq of the EC Treaty