WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4011/98 by Vincenzo VIOLA to the Commission. Proceedings under Article 93(2) opened in connection with the sale of Sicilcassa to the Banco di Sicilia SpA
21. 7. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 207/157 Joint answer to Written Questions E-4002/98 and E-0082/99 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (15 February 1999) The wording of Article 7 of Directive 90/314/EEC, which obliges organisers and retailers of package holidays to ‘provide sufficient evidence of security for the refund of money paid over and for the repatriation of the consumer in the event of insolvency’ leaves a wide margin of interpretation. In implementing this provision Member States have followed very different approaches. The Commission is closely following the implementation in all Member States. At present, infringement proceedings are pending against Italy, where the travel guarantee fund foreseen by law 111/95 has not yet been constituted, and against Greece, where maritime passenger transport companies are wholly exempted from the obligation to provide security for the case of their insolvency. It must, however, be noted that the Commission can open infringement proceedings only in cases where shortcomings in the transposition and application of Article 7 of the Directive are obvious, e. g. where there is no implementation at all (as in Italy) or where the security to be provided by organisers and retailers is clearly insufficient. It is hardly possible to argue that a security system is insufficient, if there have been no shortcomings in practice. In fact, the Commission has received no complaint from consumers or consumers’ associations, either in the United Kingdom or in any other Member State, that concerned the insufficiency of national measures to implement Article 7. From this, it would appear that no grave problems have as yet occurred in practice. Nevertheless, the Commission is still following the issue closely. Recent developments, especially the decisions of the Court of justice in the cases Dillenkofer (C-178/94), VKI vs Österreichische Kreditversicherung (C-364/ 96) and Ambry (C-410/96) give reason to believe that the measures chosen by some Member States to implement Article 7 are not in keeping with the Court’s interpretation of that provision. The Commission will invite the Member States to discuss the issue early in 1999, and will then take further steps, if necessary. As for Article 4(4) of Directive 90/314/EEC concerning the revision of published prices, the Commission would invite the Honourable Member to state the reasons that lead her to believe that this provision is not implemented correctly in the United Kingdom. (1999/C 207/218) WRITTEN QUESTION P-4011/98 by Vincenzo Viola (PPE) to the Commission (22 December 1998) Subject: Proceedings under Article 93(2) opened in connection with the sale of Sicilcassa to the Banco di Sicilia SpA Further to the Article 93(2) proceedings opened by the Commission on 7 May 1998 in connection with the sale of Sicilcassa to the Banco di Sicilia SpA, has the Italian Government supplied the information requested and when does the Commission intend to give its final opinion on whether the sale complies with the rules on free competition? In particular, would the Commission establish whether the intervention of the Interbank Deposit Guarantee Fund (’Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi’) does not itself constitute an improper aid measure, since the fact that the recovery of Sicilcassa’s bad debts (a prime example being the Banca Agricola Etnea) is proving much more successful than had been anticipated shows that the bank’s indebtedness was deliberately exaggerated so as to force it into liquidation, thus prompting the intervention of the guarantee fund and the sale of the bank to the Banco di Sicilia SpA, which, one cannot help feeling, can never have made a better deal, with scant regard for competition and market rules?