WRITTEN QUESTION P-2334/99 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission. Infringement of anti-trust rules in connection with the certification of PDI and PGI products.
8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/105 Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (28 January 2000) The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that people with disabilities must have access to the same opportunities in order to be able to participate fully in all aspects of society, including sporting activities and new technology. This is the objective of the Community disability strategy as identified by the Communication of the Commission of 30 July 1996 (1) on equality of opportunity for people with disabilities. Organisations involved in sports for people with disabilities had an opportunity to take part in the call for proposals published at the beginning of this year to grant funding for transnational measures to combat discrimination against disabled people. Similarly, in the proposal for a Community Action Programme 2001-2006 to combat discrimination, which was adopted by the Commission on 25 November 1999 (2), sport is recognised as a fundamental vehicle in promoting equal opportunities for people with disabilities. Finally, in future, as far as legal and budgetary conditions permit, the Commission intends to devote particular attention to the promotion of sport with a view to the integration of the disabled. As far as new technology is concerned, the Commission has launched calls for proposals in the area of information technology (IT) applications and services for elderly and disabled people. The legal basis for this is TIDE (Technology Initiative for Disabled and Elderly People, 1991-1992), TIDE Bridge Phase (1993-1994), the 4th (1994-1998 with a budget of EUR 60 million) and 5th (1998-2002 with a budget of EUR 40 million) framework programmes for research and technological development (RTD). The proposals selected include RTD projects to promote independent living and better integration of elderly and disabled people into society. Some accompanying measures such as Impact also provide tools to establish and assess the best assistive technology device which can support access by elderly and disabled people to IT networks or help them to handle daily activities within the work or home environment. This also includes leisure activities. On 8 December 1999, the Commission launched an initiative entitled áe-Europe ü An Information Society for Allí (3), which proposes ambitious targets to bring the benefits of the information society within reach of all Europeans. The initiative focuses on ten priority areas, one of which is áe-Participationí, which aims to ensure that the development of the information society takes full account of the needs of disabled people. One of the objectives of this initiative is to make the web pages of European and national administrations accessible to disabled people. (1) COM(96) 406 final. (2) COM(1999) 564 final and COM(1999) 567 final. (3) COM(1999) 687. (2000/C 225 E/107) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2334/99 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission (29 November 1999) Subject: Infringement of anti-trust rules in connection with the certification of PDI and PGI products Following the less than exhaustive answer to my previous Written Question P-1845/99 (1) can the Commission clarify the following: ü Article 10(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (2) states that the inspection structure for PDI and PGI products may comprise áone or more designated inspection authorities and/or private bodies approved for that purposeí. C 225 E/106 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 The Italian Governmentís decision to designate one private company for each product was criticised by: ü the Italian anti-trust authority in the notification/opinion of 6 March 1998 published in Bulletin No 8/98 ü number 12 in the notification series; ü the Lazio Regional Administrative Court in injunction No 2038/1998. Furthermore, in that injunction the Lazio Regional Administrative Court states that the Italian version of the EEC Regulation does not correspond to the other language versions, which it considers to be absolutely clear in establishing, as a principle, that there should be several private inspection bodies. Can the Commission therefore say: 1. whether it is aware of the opinions expressed by the Italian anti-trust authority and the Lazio Regional Administrative Court; 2. whether it agrees with the views expressed by the Italian judicial and supervisory authorities: 3. what steps it intends to take in this context? See page 27. (1) (2) OJ L 208, 24. 7. 1992, p. 1. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (13 December 1999) The Commission was never officially informed either of the opinion of the Italian antitrust authority, or of the ruling by the Lazio administrative court, although it heard of them unofficially. It is not the habit of the Commission to comment on decisions of this kind, which fall within the exclusive competence of the Member States. In the light of its replies to the Honourable Memberís written questions P-1845/99 (1) and E-2066/99 (2), the Commission does not feel the need to adopt any measures in this respect. (1) (2) See page 27. See page 46. (2000/C 225 E/108) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2335/99 by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission (13 December 1999) Subject: Nuclear reactors in the applicant countries 1. What is the Commissionís position with regard to nuclear reactors in the applicant countries? Does the Commission intend that the reactors should be shut down ahead of schedule and if so, 2. what is its timetable for this? Does the Commission agree with the closure plans for reactors contained, 3. national energy plans of Lithuania and Slovakia? in particular, in the 4. Can the Commission say whether and when nuclear reactors in Lithuania are due to be inspected?