C 70 E/26 Official Journal of the European Union EN 20.3.2004

between the EUR and the USD. The same is true for the relation between the Swedish krona (SEK) and the Pound Sterling (GBP). The relation between the Swedish krona and the Japanese Yen (JPY) have displayed a somewhat smaller dispersion than the relation between the euro and the Japanese Yen.

EUR/USD SEK/USD EUR/JPY SEK/JPY EUR/GBP SEK/GBP EUR/SEK STDEV (1) 6,6 8,2 7,6 7,3 3,3 4,6 3,8 AVEDEV (2) 5,6 7,2 6,3 5,7 2,5 3,9 3,2 DEVSQ (3) 45 484,0 70 062,0 60 468,0 54 481,0 11 036,0 22 061,0 15 155,0 VAR (4) 44,0 67,8 58,5 52,7 10,7 21,3 14,7

(1) Standard deviation. (2) Average of the absolute deviations of data points from their mean. (3) Sum of squares of deviations of data points from their mean. (4) Variance.

(2004/C 70 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3856/02 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Retail prices of fair-trade products

Fair trade accounts for a relatively large share of consumption in Europe. In 1997 the turnover of fair- trade products was estimated at EUR 200-250 million. 11 % of European consumers buy such products, and surveys have revealed that there is very substantial demand for them.

The EU has already adopted fair-trade initiatives, and NGOs and organisations which award fair-trade status also do their bit. Projects are also funded in developing countries. In the field of legislation, the EU has implemented fair-trade principles using numerous instruments, for example measures under the EU’s Generalised System of Tariff Preferences. Despite all these measures, fair-trade products still cost far more than normal products, at least in Finland.

How much support is provided for fair-trade products?

Does the Commission know how the retail prices of fair-trade products currently compare with those of normal products, and what are the biggest cost items which contribute to the formation of the retail prices of fair-trade products?

To what extent can national authorities influence these prices?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2003)

The increased attention on the part of the public towards fair trade products is the result, among other reasons, of the various awareness raising campaigns that have been organised at the national level, that the Community has co-financed on several occasions. Such co-financing of private initiatives is part of the limited financial support for activities relating to fair trade that the Commission has already provided to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) within the Union and to producer groups in developing countries. Other forms of support may exist at the national level, but the Commission does not monitor the total amount of such forms of support.

The Commission has never carried out any detailed study on the price-structure for fair trade products, as these are commercial decisions taken within the context of the relevant organisations and may, indeed, differ widely depending on the product and the source in question. It is, however, widely accepted that 20.3.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70 E/27

their retail prices are higher than those of other comparable non-fair trade products, due to the additional costs linked to their production and marketing, the commitment to pay above the market price for the commodities in question and the limited economies of scale that have been achieved so far.

As far as the possibilities that exist for the various national authorities to influence these prices, any such activity must remain coherent with the Union and international obligations of the Member States and of the Union. In the long run, however, only a sustained trend of increased demand for fair trade products by European consumers is likely to lead to large reductions in prices.

(2004/C 70 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3877/02 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission (10 January 2003)

Subject: A single European penal code

The proposal for a single European penal code that would apply in all the Member States is now on the table, and at the very least this idea deserves to be examined by academics and criminologists, as it is potentially of major importance in the context of joint means of dealing with criminal offences which particularly affect the Community sphere.

The introduction of uniform penalties in the Member States, notably for such offences as drug trafficking, sexual abuse of minors, illegal trafficking in human beings and environmental crimes, could prove a highly effective means of protection for the Community as a whole against the damaging effects of those criminal activities.

Does the Commission believe that it could promote a broad discussion on the possible introduction of a single European penal code, to be facilitated by the funding of studies, debates and other means of comparing legal opinions among criminologists and other experts, which would result in a concrete recommendation on the desirability of such an initiative?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (10 February 2003)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that an approximation in some areas of substantive criminal law is necessary to achieve a genuine area of justice in criminal matters. The Union has already begun to approximate national rules relating to the constituent elements of criminal acts and to penalties. The Treaty of Amsterdam, the Vienna Action Plan and the Tampere European Council conclusions identify areas, which should be harmonised as a matter of priority. The degree of harmonisation is, however, not total, partly because the exercise must respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in accordance with Protocol 30 to the Treaty of Amsterdam, and partly because the approach adopted is deliberately progressive.

However, the Commission has serious doubts about whether a Single European Penal Code would be a feasible or appropriate path to follow at this stage. The question of the approximation of substantive criminal law is sensitive. Member States’ Penal Codes reflect different legal traditions often well-rooted in history. That is why the development of a genuine area of justice has been mainly governed by the principle of mutual recognition, with approximation of substantive law only in some particular areas. This pragmatic approach is reflected in the Commission representatives’ contribution to the discussions on the Convention on the future of Europe. Each action to harmonise substantial criminal law should be justified in relation to at least one of the following criteria: the phenomenon in question is included in the list of ‘European crimes’ set out in the new Treaty and/or where the absence of action at Union level would threaten a shared European interest which is itself already the subject of a common policy. To supplement this, harmonisation is also justified where action at Union level is considered necessary to ensure the full application of mutual recognition of judicial decision and to guarantee the effectiveness of common tools for police and judicial cooperation.

Therefore, the Commission does not envisage for the time being funding any study or activity aimed at analysing the feasibility of a European Penal Code.