You are on page 1of 1

2. 10.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 304/17

The German Government sought to propose the repeal of those two instruments in 1993/94, but its proposal was
not adopted following opposition from the Upper House of Parliament and has not resurfaced since.

There can be no denying that the legislation in question, which has no counterpart elsewhere in the Community,
might not be compatible with the principles of the single market. For, businesses are unable to adopt a
pan-European promotional and advertising strategy in so far as they would have to rethink radically the content
and nature of their advertising in order to comply with legislation in one of the largest markets in the Community.
The Commission has received numerous complaints in this connection (see, for example, the answer to Written
Question No 64/98 by Mr de Vries (1)).

In the absence of any Community harmonisation in this matter, the Commission is examining the possible
restrictive effects and the proportionality of the German legislation as part of its investigations into the
aforementioned complaints and in the light of the case law of the Court.

(1) See page 26.

(98/C 304/24) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0017/98
by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission
(29 January 1998)

Subject: Language use in the Official Journal

Official Journal L 328 of 28 November 1997 contains a list of contracting authorities that are subject to the
agreement concerning the award of public service contracts. On page 10, a list relating to Belgium appears only
in French.

The Commission is aware of my concern with language use. Can I be informed why the above list appeared only
in French? Am I to conclude that Dutch and German speakers are not subject to this procurement legislation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission
(20 March 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and
will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.

(98/C 304/25) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0018/98
by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission
(29 January 1998)

Subject: Cost of the Commission representation in Vienna

The Commission’s reply to question E-3151/97 (1) only partially answered the questions concerning expenditure
on the Commission representation in Vienna.

An answer to the following questions would therefore be appreciated:

How many more staff does the Commission representation in Vienna now have than it had before Austria’s
accession?

Are there any plans for further increases in its staff? If so, how many more are to be recruited?

How much bigger is the head of the representation’s office than that of President Santer?