WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3098/97 by Bryan CASSIDY to the Commission. Commission investigation into the Dutch electrotechnical market
30. 4. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 134/81 According to the procedure provided by Article 169 of the EC Treaty, the Commission gave Germany the 1. opportunity to submit its observations. 2. A sanction according to Article 171 of the EC Treaty is foreseen only in a situation when a Member State has failed to comply with a judgement of the Court of justice. Such a judgement does not exist in this case at present. (1) OJ L 103, 25. 4. 1979. (98/C 134/104) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3098/97 by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission (2 October 1997) Subject: Commission investigation into the Dutch electrotechnical market In March 1991, the Commissionís Directorate-General IV received a complaint in relation to alleged cartel activities in the Dutch electrotechnical sector. In July 1996, after a prolonged five year investigation, the Commission issued a statement of objections setting out its views that certain wholesalers of electrotechnical installation material and their trade association were indeed engaged in anti-competitive activities. These activities have the effect of excluding foreign wholesalers from the Dutch market, thereby insolating the market from the normal conditions of competition which prevail elsewhere in the EU. The result is that Dutch consumers are obliged to pay significantly higher prices than those available to consumers in other EU Member States. Commission procedural delays have had the effect of condoning the continuance of anti-competitive behaviour over a six-year period. Can the Commission say when it intends to collude its investigation and adopt a decision so as to ensure, in the public interest, that competition is restored as quickly as possible in the Dutch market for electrotechnical installation material? Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (28 October 1997) The case referred to raises highly complex issues. The matter is still under investigation by the Commission as a priority. In a case such as this extensive investigations have to be carried out into the whole of the industry sector. Following this lengthy procedure, it is then necessary to ensure that all respondents obtain satisfactory access to all relevant available information. Respondents all have the right to make their comments on such information, which also must be investigated thoroughly. In this particular case, there are seven respondents. This procedure has now been completed and a hearing is planned with the respondents for the third week of November 1997. At all times during the investigation, the Commission must ensure that no confidential information is released without the prior express permission of the relevant party. Before the hearing has taken place it is not possible for the Commission to foresee whether or when a formal decision will be issued. (98/C 134/105) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3099/97 by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission (2 October 1997) Subject: EU research and support for the jojoba and euphorbia tree species In its answer to my question (P-2564/97 (1)) concerning jojoba and euphorbia trees, the Commission stated that research had confirmed their potential as alternative agricultural crops in the Mediterranean