You are on page 1of 2

17. 3.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 82/119

1. Is the Commission aware of these difficulties encountered by German exchange students in the exercise of
their right to free movement? If so, what action has it so far taken against them?

2. If the difficulties referred to have not yet come to the Commission’s attention, what action does it intend to
take in the future against such French administrative practices?

(1) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 30.

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission


(9 September 1997)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties still being encountered by foreign students when organising periods
of study and residence abroad outside the framework of organised mobility programmes such as Socrates/
Erasmus.

On a general level, as part of its follow-up to the Green Paper on the obstacles to transnational mobility (1) the
Commission intends to develop, within the limits of its authority, legal instruments which will enable it to
eliminate the obstacles to the free movement of students, teachers and researchers.

With particular regard to the supplement that foreign students are required to pay in university hostels in France,
the Commission has taken the matter up with the French government, specifically with the Centre National des
Oeuvres Universitaires et Scolaires (CNOUS), with the result that the circulars relating to these supplementary
charges have been amended in line with the applicable Community legislation. If the Honourable Member is
aware of any specific cases where the amended circular is being ignored, he should notify the Commission,
which will take the necessary steps immediately.

Finally, as regards the residence costs that foreign students are required to pay, these are covered by the
legislation of the Member States and the Commission has no jurisdiction in this matter.

(1) Doc COM(96) 462 final.

(98/C 82/195) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2638/97


by Pavlos Sarlis (PPE), Efthymios Christodoulou (PPE)
and Stelios Argyros (PPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1997)

Subject: Fine imposed on Antenna, a private TV channel

The National Radio and Television Council of Greece (ERS), a state body, recently singled out the Athens private
television channel, Antenna, fining it DR 100 million and ordering it to suspend operations, as a punishment for a
journalistic offence, even though no code of conduct has yet been adopted and the same offence has been
committed on an almost daily basis for years by dozens of other Greek television channels which have been
broadcasting similar television programmes with impunity.

This arbitrary and biased action by the ERS is not only an act of political pressure and a gagging order, but also a
clear violation of the provisions on competition laid down in the EU Treaty, because the administrative sanctions
referred to above will benefit the state channels and the other private TV channels and put Antenna at a terrible
competitive disadvantage.

Will the Commission say what measure it intends to take within its remit to remedy this situation?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission


(16 September 1997)

The Commission has received no complaint concerning the recent fine and order to suspend operations of the
private Athens television chanel, Antenna, by the national radio and television council of Greece (ERS). Nor has
it been suggested to the Commission that this decision constitutes any violation of Community law.
C 82/120 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 3. 98

Even if the penalty that has been imposed for a violation of national law might appear to be very heavy it does
not, at first sight, constitute any violation of Community competition law, and there is no information indicating
that trade between Member States has been affected.

Therefore the Commission has no intention at present to take any action.

(98/C 82/196) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2639/97


by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1997)

Subject: Fish withdrawn under minimum price scheme

Can the Commission provide details by EU Member State of the tonnage and value of fish withdrawn from the
market under the Commission minimum price scheme, broken down by species and by producer organization for
each of the last four years?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission


(15 September 1997)

The data showing the quantities withdrawn under the Community withdrawal price scheme, for the period
1993-1996 broken down by species and by Member State is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the
Parliament’s Secretariat. Data by producer organization is not available.

Concerning the value of the species withdrawn from the market, reference is made to the annual publication of
the withdrawal prices (for the 1997 fishing campaign, the Honourable Member is referred to Regulation (EC)
No 2427/96 fixing for the 1997 fishing year, the withdrawal and selling prices for fishery products listed in
Annex I (A), (D) and (E) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3579/92 (1)).

The budget for the financial compensations within the Community withdrawal scheme has amounted to between
12 and 20 MECU per year during the period 1993-1996.

(1) OJ L 331, 20.12.1996.

(98/C 82/197) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2645/97


by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1997)

Subject: Activities of the Conflict Prevention Network and its implications for the Commission

The bureau of the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee received an invitation to attend a meeting on 16
July 1997 in Brussels concerning the situation in Cyprus. The invitation was issued by the Conflict Prevention
Network (CNP), which receives Commission funding and uses its name, together with the European Union
emblem, on its logotype.

The letter of invitation also indicates that ‘the admission of the Greek section of the island alone, as a result of
Greek pressure within the EU, will, in the long term, lead to a dramatic geostrategic shift in the south-eastern
Mediterranean’.

The inaccurate nature of such observations concerning the future accession of Cyprus and the spirit behind them
give a wholly distorted and imprecise picture of the situation on the island.

The meeting in question was cancelled following a timely response by the bureau of the Joint Parliamentary
Committee. Nevertheless, this is a particularly serious matter since the Commission is revealed to be funding a
body which is, in fact, propagating official positions adopted by Turkey, which has for 23 years, been occupying
37% of Cyprus.