You are on page 1of 2

C 304/152

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities WRITTEN QUESTION P-0735/98 by Rinaldo Bontempi (PSE) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

2. 10. 98

(98/C 304/230)

Subject: Second request for an agreement on social security between the European Union and the Principality of Monaco Following Written Question E-4012/96 (1) requesting an agreement on social security between the European Union and the Principality of Monaco, the Commission stated its commitment to seeking the conclusion of such an agreement. Although more than a year has passed, the agreement still has to be initialled and EU citizens working in the Principality of Monaco are encountering more and more obstacles. A particular problem is that faced by frontier workers who, after working in Italy, France and the Principality, are not able to aggregate their periods of contribution when claiming their pensions. Italian frontier workers are further penalized in that, thanks to an agreement between France and the Principality, residents of the neighbouring communes in France are hired first, along with Monegasque citizens. Does the Commission intend, in the near future, to conclude a cooperation or association agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Monaco which includes arrangements in the social sector applying the Community coordinating rules laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (2)? What are the reasons for the delay?
(1) (2) OJ C 138, 5.5.1997, p. 165. OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1998) The Commission is aware of the difficulties in obtaining social security benefits encountered by Community citizens moving to Monaco, taking account of the particular status of that country. The Commission has studied the possibility of proposing an agreement of the same type as that envisaged in the case of San Marino. However, an agreement of this nature would go well beyond the framework of social security, and it has not yet been possible to draw up a proposal.

(98/C 304/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0736/98 by Sergio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) to the Commission ´ (2 March 1998)

Subject: Application for Cohesion Fund resources for a project for cleaning up the catchment area of the rivers Lis and Seiça (Portugal) On 6 January 1998 the Commission replied to my Question P-3932/97 (1) on the catchment area of the rivers Lis and Seiça (Portugal)/Cohesion Fund, stating that it had received an application for cofunding the first phase of a cleaning up project and would consider this application on the basis of the technical and economic assessment of the project, the resources available under the Cohesion Fund for Portugal and the priorities fixed by the Commission and the Member State concerned. Will the Commission say what progress has been made in assessing this application and establishing priorities and whether any decision has yet been made?
(1) OJ C 187, 16.6.1998, p. 94.

2. 10. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (30 March 1998)

C 304/153

The application for part-financing from the Cohesion Fund for the project for cleaning up the catchment area of the Rivers Lis and Seiça is still being examined. However, the amount requested greatly exceeds that available from the Cohesion Fund for Portugal until 1999. A final decision on the project will therefore have to await the drawing up of priorities for the Cohesion Fund in agreement with the Portuguese authorities.

(98/C 304/232)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0737/98 by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Commission (2 March 1998)

Subject: EU trade mark directive The EU’s trade mark directive creates special legal protection for the producers of branded articles, permitting them to keep the prices of their products artificially high. This rule seems very questionable in commercial law, since it places the protection of branded article producers above international conventions and agreements. This restricts the free movement of goods and acts against the interests of the consumer, who must ultimately pay the inflated price. In view of the above: 1. In the Commission’s view, what are the consequences for competition and consumer policy of the restriction of free movement of goods as a result of the transposition of the EU trade mark directive in 1995, and how does it justify the de facto dominance of the interests of branded goods producers over those of free world trade and the consumer? 2. What information does the Commission possess about the extent to which the EU trade mark directive prevents the import of branded products at lower prices, and what effects has the directive had since its entry into force on the level of sales prices for branded articles on international markets? 3. What information does the Commission possess about the practical application of the trade mark directive in the Member States of the European Union, and can it confirm that a court in Belgium, for example, has condemned as an abuse of the directive its application for the purpose of preventing parallel imports?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (8 April 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 304/233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0743/98 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Council (16 March 1998)

Subject: Law and order among tourists As part of its work on Justice and Home Affairs, has the Council discussed the proper enforcement of law and order when incidents arise between or among tourists visiting another Member State? Does the Council agree that incidents such as violent assaults by one tourist on another should be dealt with by appropriate action, including prosecution, rather than by simply deporting the offender without taking any action or even by allowing tour operators to relocate offenders in another tourist location?