You are on page 1of 2

C 82/148 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 3.


Landowners were alarmed when they were refused an interview with the authorities to plead their case. In an
attempt to make some sort of contact with the authorities, four people in Karvia have started a hunger strike,
which at the time of drafting of this question has already lasted five days but so far failed to achieve the desired

In the light of the foregoing:

1. Will the Commission give consideration to Finland’s Natura 2000 programme regardless of the legality or
otherwise of the preparations?

2. Does the Commission think it admissible for civil rights to be trodden underfoot in Finland while the
Natura 2000 programme is being prepared?

3. What steps will the Commission take to ensure that the preparatory work performed by the Finnish
environmental authorities conforms to the principles underlying the rule of law?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 1997)

Council Directive 92/43/EC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora (1) provides for the creation of a European ecological network of special areas of conservation, to be known
as Natura 2000.

To this end, the Directive stipulates that the Member States must propose a list of sites on the basis of the criteria
set out in Annex III to the Directive and relevant scientific information. In the initial stage this list is transmitted
to the Commission.

Responsibility for this first stage lies entirely with the Member States, which must ensure that it is conducted in
accordance with the specific basic rights of their citizens. The Commission, questioned by the Member States in
the Directive's management committee, has already indicated on a number of occasions that by virtue of
subsidiarity this is a national exercise.

Nonetheless, the Commission also indicated that it felt that the provision by the Member States of proper
information to the public during the selection process could play an important part in ensuring the latter's active
and effective participation in protecting nature.

In the subsequent stages the Commission will see that the Directive is implemented in full compliance with
Community law. Once again, it will fall to the Member States to ensure compliance with the basic rights of their
citizens in those areas for which the Directive makes them responsible.

(1) OJ L 206, 21.5.1992.

(98/C 82/237) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2861/97

by Arlene McCarthy (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1997)

Subject: Inquiry into anti-dumping duties on exports of unbleached cotton from India, Pakistan, Indonesia,
Turkey, China and Egypt

With regard to the new inquiry into anti-dumping duties on exports of unbleached cotton from India, Pakistan,
Indonesia, Turkey, China and Egypt, would the Commission please clarify the role that the Community Interest
investigation will play in this third complaint, in the light of the fact that the results of the same procedure were
given little consideration during the previous case earlier this year?

For the benefit of the many interested parties devoting considerable time and resources to preventing the
imposition of these duties, the inevitable consequences of which would be redundancies and factory closures
across the European textiles finishing industry and wholesale sector, would the Commission please clarify
whether the inquiry is indeed legal and will therefore continue, given that no official notice was published to
formally close the previous investigation, which expired in May?
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

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

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.