You are on page 1of 2

17. 3.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 82/149

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission


(23 September 1997)

In the previous anti-dumping proceedings, a thorough Community interest investigation was conducted in order
to assess the impact of possible measures on all interested parties. This investigation concluded that it was in the
Community interest to take anti-dumping measures. The Council, however, did not accept the Commission's
proposal to impose definitive measures and the 15 month deadline set by Article 6.9 of Council Regulation (EC)
No384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1)
expired. The provisional duties imposed during those proceedings have therefore lapsed without being collected
and the expiry of the deadline means that definitive measures may no longer be adopted pursuant to that
investigation.

Shortly after the expiry of the above mentioned deadline the Commission received a new anti-dumping
complaint. This has been scrutinised in the normal way with the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to
warrant initiation of proceedings. The Commission consequently decided to initiate new proceedings on this
product and a notice (2) was published to that effect.

In these new proceedings, the same special attention will be paid to analysing in detail the Community interest
aspect of the case. In this respect all interested parties (producers, importers, finishers) are now being invited to
provide detailed information on a number of aspects, including possible redundancies and factory closures. This
information will be taken into account for the examination of the merits of the case.

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996.


(2) OJ C 210, 11.7.1997.

(98/C 82/238) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2869/97


by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(1 September 1997)

Subject: The Media II programme

Can the Commission specify how the appropriations for the Media II programme (in particular Media II −
development) for 1997 have been allocated?

What has been the degree of participation in the programme so far?

Why are proposals involving countries with a smaller production capacity, such as Greece and Portugal,
systematically rejected?

By what means, and in accordance with which criteria, is the effectiveness and objectivity of selections
guaranteed?

What are the criteria used when selecting contributors (readers, experts, etc.) and how are they recompensed? Are
efforts made to use contributors on a rotating basis?

What steps are being taken to protect the linguistic and more general cultural specialities of programme-creators?

How can genuinely creative people be protected against profiteering by middlemen?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission


(7 October 1997)

In 1997 the Commission organised four calls for proposals in the development sector of the MEDIA II
programme (1) (Council Decision 95/563/EC of 22 December 1995). Due to the very high level of participation
(on average, 1000 projects per call), the selection process is relatively lengthy. This means that, for 1997, only the
results of the first development call can be communicated at this stage. The results of the second and third calls
are expected for the end of September; those of the fourth call for the beginning of December.

Out of a total of 1343 projects submitted in the first development call organised in 1997 158 projects were
selected for a total amount of 3.5 MECU.
C 82/150 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 3. 98

Since the launching of the MEDIA II programme, the Commission has made sure that positive discrimination
measures in favour of projects submitted by companies registered in Member States with a low audiovisual
production capacity are systematically applied. Furthermore, specific information and training sessions targeted
at potential applicants from those Member States are organised. As a result the MEDIA II programme has
received an increasing amount of proposals from Member States with a low audiovisual production capacity. It
should also be stressed that the relative percentage of projects selected is always higher than that of projects
submitted (on average 30% of selected projects as compared to 25% of applications). In the particular case of the
two Member States mentioned (i.e. Greece and Portugal), the ratio between projects submitted to projects
selected corresponds to the overall average for all Member States of 10 to 12%.

In accordance with the Council Decision, the selection criteria on the basis of which all projects are assessed are
those announced in the guidelines of each call for proposals, which in turn have been approved by the members
of the committee prior to publication.

In order to ensure fair treatment for all projects submitted, the readers or assessors involved in advising the
Commission during the selection procedure are chosen on the basis of their knowledge and expertise to provide
quality assessments of the scripts submitted in their original language. As far as the experts serving on individual
panels of experts are concerned, these are chosen from lists submitted by members of the MEDIA committee to
the Commission and are consulted on a rotating basis.

(1) OJ L 321, 30.12.1995.

(98/C 82/239) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2877/97


by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1997)

Subject: Coherence of Commission policies with Council Resolution of 18 June 1992 on the marketing of
breastmilk substitutes in third countries by Community-based manufacturers

Can the Commission confirm that the Danish baby food company, MILCO, violated the WHO Code of 1981 on
the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in its operations in Bangladesh, and, as a consequence, has acted
inconsistently with the Council Resolution of 18 June 1992 on the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in third
countries by Community-based manufacturers (1)?

Is it the case that the Commission offers tax rebates to companies such as MILCO, promoting breastmilk
substitutes outside the EU, even when these activities are in breach of the WHO Code of 1981 and the Council
Resolution of 18 June 1992?

If so, does the Commission not agree that its approach is wholly inconsistent with the International Code and the
Council Resolution, and that these tax rebates should be immediately stopped?

(1) OJ C 172, 8.7.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission


(22 September 1997)

The Commission, in line with the Council Resolution of 18 June 1992, has instructed its delegations in third
countries to serve as contact points for the authorities in order that any complaints or criticisms with respect to
the marketing practices of a manufacturer based in the Community could be notified to them. No such complaints
have been received to date from Bangladesh. The Commission therefore cannot confirm any statements or
reports of inappropriate marketing practices by Community-based companies in this country.

Further the Commission would stress that in the absence of any such complaint on the subject, the case evoked
by the Honourable Member in the second part of her question is not applicable.