Está en la página 1de 2

C 222 E/98 Official Journal of the European Union EN 18.9.


Chilean authorities. If necessary, it will not hesitate to raise with them any questions concerning serious
violations of human rights in general or any specific case of violation of indigenous peoples’ rights.

3. Neither the above Joint Declaration annexed to the 1996 EC-Chile Framework Co-operation
Agreement nor the EU-Chile Association Agreement’s provisions on political dialogue explicitly foresee
the participation of representatives of the civil society in the EU-Chile political dialogue. According to the
existing applicable rules, the EU-Chile political dialogue was institutionalised between the two Parties at the
level of the President of Chile and the highest EU authorities, between Foreign Ministers or other Ministers
and senior officials of both Parties. It is however up to each Party to decide on the composition of its
delegation, which may if necessary include representatives of its civil society.

It is also recalled that Article 11 of the Association Agreement foresees the possibility for the Parties to
promote regular meetings of representatives of the Chilean and EU’s civil societies, including the academic
community, social and economic partners and NGOs, where questions like the one raised by the
Honourable Parliamentarian may be examined.

At its meeting on 11 November 2002, the Council recalled its strong commitment to the Resolution of
30 November 1998 on indigenous peoples within the Framework of the Development Co-operation of the
Community and the Member States. At that occasion, the Council also considered that the concerns of
indigenous peoples could be integrated into the political dialogue with partner countries, and that partner
countries could be encouraged to foster intercultural dialogue and co-operation.

(2003/C 222 E/116) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3651/02

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Subject: Break-up of the HMC Pubblicità company

It has recently been reported in the press that Cairo Communications (run by Urbano Cairo, the former
head of Publitalia) is the new advertising agent for TV La7 (part of the Tronchetti Provera group).

HMC Pubblicità (TV La7’s previous agent and 100 % controlled by SEAT/Telecom) is about to be broken
up, with over 40 employees having been dismissed in a most irregular fashion (pre-printed letters being
signed, the company’s situation being presented to the staff as irreversible, and so on).

In view of the close links between Cairo Communications and Publitalia, granting the former a contract for
La7’s advertising could lead to even greater entrenchment of the dominant positions and the virtual
monopoly within Italy’s television and advertising sector, which may have a detrimental effect in terms of
a further reduction in (if not to say the total disappearance of) forums (already reduced to the bare
minimum) in which democratic pluralism and accurate information may be sought.

As proof of this, very little prominence has been given in the press to the La7/Cairo/HMC deal, despite its
significance and the effects which it will have in competitive terms and on the television and advertising
sector itself.

In view, furthermore, of the fact that other deals have been struck between the Tronchetti Provera and
Fininvest groups, including the acquisition of Edilnord and the ‘Pagine Utili’ company, can and will the
Commission take any action with regard to the La7/Cairo Communications deal and the current break-up
of HMC, given that the deal further strengthens Mediaset’s monopoly and that of its subsidiary Publitalia in
the television and advertising sector?
18.9.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 222 E/99

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2003)

The Honourable Member refers to an agreement between an Italian broadcaster (La7) and an Italian
advertisement agent (Cairo Communications) concerning the Italian advertising market.

The Commission is not aware of any complaints regarding the above-mentioned agreement between Cairo
Communications and La7, nor has this agreement been notified to the Commission. Furthermore, the
Commission has no element, at the present stage, to evaluate whether the agreement in question would be
capable to appreciably affect the trade between Member states and, therefore, to come within the scope of
Community Competition rules.

The Honourable Member also refers to Mediaset/Publitalia’s position on the Italian television and
advertisement markets. In this respect, the Commission has no information which could support the
conclusion that the agreement between Cairo communications and TV La 7 could, due to certain alleged
links between the parties to this agreement and Publitalia, lead to a possible strengthening of the latter’s
position on the above-mentioned markets.

(2003/C 222 E/117) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3662/02

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Amendment of WHA Agreement 12-40 between the WHO and the IAEA

On 28 May 1959 the 12th Assembly of the World Health Organisation adopted Resolution WHA 12-40
covering an agreement linking the WHO to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The agreement
stipulated that WHO work and programmes deemed to be related to the IAEA’s sphere of activities would
be subject to the control and approval of the latter organisation and that the procedures for and conduct
of such work and programmes would be subject to a negotiated consensus (Article 1(3)).

The same article set out the explicit and partisan aims of the IAEA, stating that its main responsibility is to
encourage, assist and coordinate around the world research into, and the development and practical use of,
atomic energy for peaceful purposes. In the WHO Constitution which was ratified in July 1946 and which
entered into force on 7 April 1947, in accordance with the United Nations Charter the contracting parties
adopted the following principle as basic to the security of all peoples: ‘Informed opinion and active
cooperation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of
the people. Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples’. In the report which it
submitted to the WHO in 1958, the study group on the mental health issues raised by the use of atomic
energy stated that the most satisfactory solution for the future peaceful use of atomic energy would be for
a new generation that had learned to accept ignorance and uncertainty as a fact of life to emerge.

Is the Council not concerned at this flagrant collusion between two international institutions, with WHO
reports being subjected to censure by the IAEA, which is intrinsically pro-nuclear?

Is it not alarmed at the implications which the compromises clearly made by the WHO have for the
objectivity and accuracy of EU studies carried out in preparation for its programmes and action in the field
of nuclear energy and related diseases (brought about by the use of depleted uranium in Iraq and the FYR
or the effects of Chernobyl in Eastern Europe)?

Given this affront to the transparency and independence of the WHO, which is borne out by the fact that
it took ten years to organise on its own a conference on the Chernobyl disaster and then failed to publish
the report of the proceedings, should the Council not denounce the collusion brought about by some
provisions of the agreement?

Will the Council undertake, within the framework of its bilateral dialogue with these two international
institutions, to demand the amendment of WHA Agreement 12-40 (Article 1(3), under which each party is
to provide the other with information), as provided for in Article 13 thereof?