WRITTEN QUESTION E-0432/00 by Giorgos Katiforis (PSE) to the Commission. Commission dispute with the International Automobile Federation.
21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/157 (2000/C 330 E/178) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0432/00 by Giorgos Katiforis (PSE) to the Commission (23 February 2000) Subject: Commission dispute with the International Automobile Federation Can the Commission explain why it took until the end of June 1999 to issue its statement of objections against the International Automobile Federation (FIA) when the FIA voluntarily notified its rules and statutes to the Commission in July 1994, and can it state what technical reports were commissioned by the Competition Department in support of its objections? Can the Commission explain why it saw a need to break its own rules of confidentiality and brief the press illegally regarding the FIA case, and, after its actions were condemned by the Court of First Instance, can it state what disciplinary action was taken against those who authorised this illegal action? Can the Commission inform the House of the total costs involved in defending its case against the FIA in the Court of First Instance, including (a) the costs awarded against it, and (b) the man hours expended by the legal services in defending the case? Can the Commission guarantee that if its statement of objections against the FIA is adopted, this will not lead to the current practice of free-to-air broadcasting of Formula One for European citizens being eroded or scrapped? Can the Commission confirm that the report on sport by Commissioner Reding, adopted by the Commission in December 1999 and submitted to the Helsinki European Summit, is the most up-to-date and definitive statement by the Commission on the issue of sports governance and the application of internal market rules, and if so could the Commission confirm that all its departments would be expected to pay due regard of its contents when acting on behalf of the EU? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (4 April 2000) The Honourable Memberís question relates to a pending competition investigation. As regards parliament- ary questions on pending cases, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the letter of the then competition Commissioner dated 28th January 1999 to the then Chairman of the Parliament committee on Economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy which explained that only limited, general and non-confidential information can be provided in relation to pending cases. As regards the delays involved in these cases, the Commission would also like to refer the Honourable Member to the above mentioned letter, in which the Commission stated that the International automobile federation (FIA) itself extended the scope of the case by modifying its rules and by filing a new notification concerning Formula One in September 1997. The same letter also explained that, after the date of the initial notification, the Commission received a number of complaints against the FIA. The Competition Directorate general did not commission any technical reports in the FIA-related cases. The necessary information was provided by the parties involved or third parties either on their own initiative or upon the Commissionís request. The issue of the leak to the press was settled by the Commissionís public apology on 26 July 1999 (press release IP/99/564) and the order of the Court of first instance (CFI) dated 6 December 1999 (Case T-85/ 98). The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to this order. Due to the fact that no professional fault had been established, this incident did not warrant any disciplinary action. C 330 E/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 In the above mentioned Order, the CFI fixed the total costs payable by the Commission at € 40 000 whereas the FIA had requested an amount of € 400 000. The Commission cannot give any relevant information on the man hours spent by its legal services in defending the case before the CFI which was settled at an early stage. The Commission staff and budgetary regulations do not provide for a method for such calculations. Moreover, the Court of justice held (Case C-409/96T/DEP) that the work undertaken by Commission officials who act as agents for the Commission is part of their duties as officials and that no portion thereof can be specifically attributed to the representation and defence in a particular case. As regards the fourth question, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the statement of objections was already adopted by the Commission on 29 June 1999. The Commission expects that any final action in the present case will have the effect of stimulating competition in the relevant broadcasting market. the Commission confirms that Finally, its report on sport of December 1999 mentioned by the Honourable Member is the most current Commission statement on its overall policy in sport related issues and that all departments in the Commission are taking due regard of its contents in their respective actions. (2000/C 330 E/179) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0434/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission Subject: Housing safety standards (23 February 2000) With reference to Written Question E-2480/99 and the Commission reply (1), and while questioning in passing the fact that the Commission did not consider it necessary to introduce legislation laying down safety standards for housing, despite the many recent incidents that have alerted us to this issue, can the Commission explain why a directive adopted twelve years ago (Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988) (2) has not yet been transposed into the individual Member Statesí domestic law? Does the Commission agree that it is possible that a directive dating back so far no longer corresponds to current safety standards for housing, and requires updating? So, while we urgently request that a directive be drawn up on housing safety standards, could the Commission also take action to speed up the process of drawing up technical specifications, which supposedly is being carried out by the standards organisations, with a view to laying down harmonised and, as far as possible, definitive standards? Finally, could the Commission set out the criteria for the implementation of the reference directive, once it has been updated or transposed into law? (1) OJ C 280 E, 3. 10. 2000, p. 52. (2) OJ L 40, 11. 2. 1989, p. 12. Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (6 April 2000) The Commission shares the Honourable Membersí concerns regarding housing safety standards in the Community. For several years the Commission has made a considerable effort to bring about harmonisation of the different types and methods of design and construction both in the building industry and in public works, in so far as its mandate and means have allowed. These efforts resulted both in the adoption of Council Directive 89/106/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products and in the preparation of Eurocodes. The Commission would also like to point out that all Member States have transposed this Directive, the latest being Belgium in 1998