WRITTEN QUESTION No. 202/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Commission. Budget line on the family
2. 10. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 304/51 originally subject to price agreements are reimported from countries other than the Member States and are not subject to further price agreements provided they are not transactions for the purpose of evading the law? If this opinion is not accepted, the requirements for derogation pursuant to Article 85(3) EC Treaty are fulfilled on the basis of an assessment of competition law which takes account of the cultural aspect of book price agreements. Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (24 March 1998) The Commission has consistently maintained that the Councilís initiative in instructing the Commission to prepare a report pursuant to Article 152 of the EC Treaty should be considered independent of the competition proceedings concerning the German/Austrian price-fixing scheme for books ( Buchpreisbindungí) provided that the proceedings in question are not impeded as a result. In this competition case, in which the publishers submitted the notification in the spring of 1993 and for which the Commission is solely competent, formal proceedings had to be instituted after the Commission had made a careful examination of the publishersí arguments and come to the provisional conclusion that exemption was not justified. The report was submitted by the parties to the proceedings. It concludes that Article 85(1) is no longer applicable to the German/Austrian price-fixing scheme for books because Article 128(4) had been inserted into the EC Treaty by the Treaty on European Union. This contradicts the settled case law of the Court of Justice as the reportís author acknowledges (he states that his opinion goes beyond previous case law and decision-making practice). In 1995, quite some time after Article 128(4) had been inserted, the Court of Justice based itself on the self-evident fact that Article 85(1) was applicable to the cross-border price-fixing scheme involving the United Kingdom and Ireland. The possible advantages of any price-fixing agreement are always initially examined under Article 85(3). It is unclear from the Honourable Memberís question why she assumes that the conditions for exemption were met. As stated above, the Commission reached its provisional conclusion that the conditions for exemption had not been met after a careful examination of all the arguments put forward and on the basis of statistically sound data. (98/C 304/71) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0202/98 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission (11 February 1998) Subject: Budget line on the family Can the Commission state what measures have been financed under budget line B3-4108: Measures in support of the family and what the appropriate legal bases are under primary legislation? Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (3 April 1998) In 1997, the Commission financed a number of measures under budget line B3-4108: Measures in support of the familyí. The commitments (almost ECU 2. 5 million) went to cover the cost of financing analysis and research into the family and family policies, exchange of experience and information among Member States on subjects connected with the family, particularly ways of reconciling family and working life; child protection measures and population studies. The budget was implemented in conformity with the Commission communication of 6 July 1994 concerning the legal bases (1) (1) Doc. SEC (94) 1106 final