WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3005/98 by Elmar BROK to the Commission. Dishonest sales practices involving names of German firms in the CITA shopping centre in Playa del Ingles, Grand Canaria (Spain)
8. 4. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 96/157 (1999/C 96/226) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3005/98 by Elmar Brok (PPE) to the Commission (8 October 1998) Subject: Dishonest sales practices involving names of German firms in the CITA shopping centre in Playa del Ingles, Grand Canaria (Spain) Is the Commission aware of the fact, reported by German television, that some purveyors of electronic 1. leisure goods in the CITA shopping centre on Grand Canaria are deliberately deceiving their customers by displaying the names of well-known German firms › although the shops in question are not branches/outlets › and that they are also using these names for unauthorised guarantees Is the Commission aware that very large numbers of holiday makers have been taken in by this sales ploy 2. and that the Spanish authorities, despite many complaints, will hardly lift a finger to help? Is there any way in which the Commission can bring pressure to bear on the Spanish authorities to put an 3. end to such illegal practices forthwith? Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1998) The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned. (1999/C 96/227) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3023/98 by SØrgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (8 October 1998) Subject: Harmful environmental effects stemming from Community financial support (Cerâmica do Olival at Olival/OurØm and Preceram at Travasso/Pombal, Portugal) In two towns within the same region, although not very close to one another (Olival/OurØm and Travasso/ Pombal), there used to be, some years ago, two ceramics factories which were regarded by the local people as part of their living and working environment. Access to Community funds enabled the two factories › Cerâmica do Olival and Preceram › to implement modernisation programmes. However, what could (and, indeed, began to) be regarded as something beneficial (including by the local people) had an extremely harmful effect on the environment, apparently because of a new type of fuel being used. Plant life and agricultural produce were damaged over several successive years and many people felt that their health was suffering. The response to this state of affairs took many different forms: local people demonstrated and protested to official bodies and even to the author of this question, who was able to experience the situation for himself in the towns concerned. Those people are now feeling a degree of despair at the futility of their efforts and at the fact that the situation (particularly as regards public health) has not been remedied and is even getting worse. What was once regarded as a benefit (the Community funding provided) is now being blamed for the problems which have arisen. Is the Commission aware of this issue? Did it express any opinion regarding the projects and has it (or had it) any control over the use of the funds, with particular regard to the environmental implications thereof? Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (4 November 1998) The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible