WRITTEN QUESTION E-1701/99 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission. State aid and the RAI affair.
C 203 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18. 7. 2000 5. Where a manufacturer requests a notified body to carry out conformity assessment procedures required under New Approach Directives, these are done on the basis inter alia, of technical documenta- tion provided by the manufacturer. It is not the function of notified bodies to carry out autonomous market surveillance activities, which are the prerogative of national authorities. 6. The Commission is not aware of survey results of the type referred to by the Honourable Member. 7. The identification of defective products is a matter for the Member States. The Commission, through administrative co-operation, safeguard and, for consumer goods presenting severe and immediate hazards, RAPEX procedures, assists with the distribution of information concerning defective products which have been identified by Member State authorities, where problems have not been satisfactorily resolved. The medical devices vigilance system monitors serious incidents involving medical devices, whether rectified or not. 8. Monitoring of injuries, with a view to reducing their incidence has in the past been carried out under the European home and leisure accident surveillance system (Ehlass). The Community action programme on injury prevention in the framework of action in the field of public health (2) will reinforce and develop this, helping identify any areas where deficiencies in product safety may contribute to accidents. As has been made clear above, the Commission does not share the view of the Honourable Member that the use of the CE marking reduces safety standards. It believes that the reverse is the case, due to the application of uniformly high levels of protection to products placed on the internal market. (1) OJ C 136, 4. 6. 1985; OJ L 220, 30. 8. 1993; OJ L 282, 17. 11. 1993. (2) Parliament and Council Decision 372/99/EC of 8 February 1999 adopting a programme of Community action on injury prevention in the field of public health (1999-2003), OJ L 46, 20. 2. 1999. (2000/C 203 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1701/99 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 September 1999) Subject: State aid and the RAI affair Can the Commission provide an update on the proceedings against the Italian state radio and television service (RAI) for receiving allegedly unfair state aid? Is the Commission aware that RAI TV has spent, and continues to spend, huge amounts of money on trite, uneducational entertainment programmes and on heavily biased programmes of a political and/or cultural nature? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 November 1999) In February 1999 the Commission requested the Italian government to provide the information necessary to assess whether the aid granted to Radio Televisione Italiana (RAI) might be considered as existing aid in the sense of Article 88(1) (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty. On the basis of the information submitted by the Italian government, the Commission decided in July 1999 to initiate the formal investigation procedure with respect to some aid measures granted to RAI by the state and Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale (IRI) over the 1992-1994 period. The Commission takes the view that these measures can not be considered as existing aid, as they were not foreseen in any law pre-dating the entry into force of the EC Treaty. At the present stage, the Commission has doubts as to their compatibility with the common market. 18. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 203 E/29 The Commission informed Italy about government should submit its observations by the end of October 1999. this procedure at the end of September 1999. The Italian As to the Honourable Memberís second question, the Commission is not competent to evaluate the quality or the content of the television programmes broadcast by RAI. The Commission has the duty to assess whether the funds granted by the state to RAI, both as licence fee and as other support measures, are proportionate to the net costs incurred by the undertaking to fulfil the public service obligations imposed by the state. (2000/C 203 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1710/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (29 September 1999) Subject: Finnish egg production subsidy The Finnish Government currently provides an EU-approved subsidy ü reportedly FIM 2,35 per kilo ü for egg production in Finland. There is no such subsidy in Sweden, which results in distortion of competition. What plans does the Commission have for phasing out this subsidy? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (8 November 1999) Article 138(1) of the Act of Accession (1) permits Austria and Finland to grant during the transitional period, subject to authorization by the Commission, transitional and degressive national aids to producers of basic agricultural products subject to the common agricultural policy. Provided the conditions set out in paragraph 2 are met, the Commission is obliged to authorize these aids. Article 138 was originally implemented as regards Finland by Commission Decision 95/33/EC of 13 February 1995 approving parts of the Finnish programme for the implementation of Articles 138 to 140 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (2). This decision has been amended a number of times. The current limits for production-related aids in Finland for egg production are laid down in Commission Decision 97/499/EC of 30 July 1996 amending for the fourth time Decision no 95/33/EC (3). For 1999 the maximum aid rates for eggs are as follows: ü Areas A and B excluding archipelago: 1,58 FIM/kg (0,27 €/kg) ü Archipelago in areas A and B: 1,95 FIM/kg (0,33 €/kg) ü Other areas excluding archipelago: 0,52 FIM/kg (0,09 €/kg) ü Archipelago in other areas: 0,52 FIM/kg (0,09 €/kg) Article 138 is only applicable during the transitional period, until the end of 1999, so these aids will cease at that time. (1) OJ C 241, 29. 8. 1994. (2) OJ L 43, 25. 2. 1995. (3) OJ L 194, 23. 7. 1997