WRITTEN QUESTION No. 468/99 by Riccardo NENCINI The Luna Park in Rome and the Treaty provisions on free competition
29. 11. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 341/121 However, the above mentioned exemptions concern only the prohibition of processing, and not the other provisions of the Directive such as, for example, the principles of proportionality and purpose limitation (Article 6). In other words, even where the processing of sensitive data is allowed, such processing must comply with all the requirements laid down by the Directive. In this situation it is up to the Member State to ensure that the citizen’s fundamental rights to privacy and non-discrimination are not violated. The deadline for implementing Directive 95/46/EC was 24 October 1998. Spain has not respected this deadline. A letter of formal notice was addressed by the Commission to Spain, and the Commission is currently considering further steps in the framework of the infringement proceedings. (1) OJ L 281, 23. 11. 1995. (1999/C 341/170) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0468/99 by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission (5 March 1999) Subject: The Luna Park in Rome and the Treaty provisions on free competition Through a former Commissioner and two years after the normal expiry date, the EUR organisation (Rome) has offered the previous concession-holder a draft agreement for the renewal of the concession on the area on which the Luna Park stands in Rome. A nine-year contract worth an average of ITL 750 000 000 per annum is involved and, given the size of that contract, a invitation to tender should be issued at European level. The above arrangements are therefore in breach of the Treaty provisions on free competition. In view of this fact, would the Commission not agree that it should take action on this matter without delay? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (20 April 1999) The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible. (1999/C 341/171) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0470/99 by Niels Sindal (PSE) to the Commission (24 February 1999) Subject: Unlawful price agreements In January 1999, the Danish media claimed that unlawful price-fixing agreements existed between a number of mortgage lenders in Denmark, as a result of which tariffs were difficult to understand and administrative charges accounted for an inordinately high proportion of total costs. Is the Commission aware of the state of affairs prevailing on the Danish mortgage market (financial market)? Does it agree that the administrative charges should reflect the true cost of processing a mortgage loan and that tariffs in general must be relatively easy for consumers to understand? What action does it plan to take in view of the state of affairs described above?