WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2619/97 by Pat GALLAGHER to the Commission. Competitiveness Advisory Group
11. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 76/131 proceedings, the Commission is limited to assessing the evidence contained in the complaint. In the present case, since facts reported in the complaint constituted evidence of injurious dumping, the Commission was obliged to open a new proceeding. (1) OJ L 56, 6. 3. 1996. (98/C 76/248) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2619/97 by Pat Gallagher (UPE) to the Commission (18 July 1997) Subject: Competitiveness Advisory Group Can the Commission indicate 1. The basis used for seeking nominations for the second Competitiveness Advisory Group (CAG), 2. Whether Irelandís social partners or the Irish government were asked to submit a candidate, and 3. Why there is no Irish participant on the Group? Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (10 September 1997) The competitiveness advisory group was established as an independent group of eminent personalities by the Commission in February 1995 in line with a recommendation of the Essen European Council (December 1994). At the end of its two-year mandate and due to its success, the Commission decided (February 1997) that its work should be continued by appointing a new competitiveness advisory group. The decision was welcomed by the Amsterdam European Council (June 1997). Independence is an essential feature of the group. This means, in particular, that each member is invited to participate on a personal basis and not as a representative of a government or any other organisation. As a matter of record, membership of the group has included so far nationals of 13 Member States. Mr Peter Cassel, general secretary of the Irish Trade union congress, was a member of the first group for the entire duration of its mandate. (98/C 76/249) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2634/97 by Roberto Mezzaroma (UPE) to the Commission (22 July 1997) Subject: Single market Can the Commission say what point has been reached in the inquiry it is carrying out into the alleged abuse of a dominant position on the manufacture tobacco market by the multinational Philip Morris and the Italian financial authorities? Has the inquiry identified the mechanism which has so far undermined attempts to compete with the multinational, which now seems to account for 55% of the Italian market? Is there total freedom and competition in Italy, enabling any European manufacturer to sell products without restrictions being caused by exclusive sales outlets? Finally, can the Commission say how long it will take to complete the investigations? Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (4 September 1997) The Commission has initiated proceedings, pursuant to Regulation No 17/62 implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (1), in order to ascertain whether certain practices pursued by the Amministrazione autonoma dei monopoli di Stato ( AAMSí) on the Italian cigarette market constitute abuse of a dominant position under Article 86 of the EC Treaty. The proceedings relate in particular to the obstacles created by the AAMS to market access by foreign cigarettes