WRITTEN QUESTION P-1989/99 by Norbert Glante (PSE)to the Commission. Commission measures to prepare a decision on price-fixing for books.
C 170 E/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 6. 2000 Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (9 November 1999) The Commission is aware of the problems in relation to animal welfare at the frontier posts 1. concerned. Several veterinary inspection missions of the Commissionís food and veterinary office (FVO) have been carried out in Gorizia and Prosecco. Following the missions, detailed recommendations were submitted to the Italian authorities and some improvements were noted. Unfortunately the recent complaints indicate that those improvements may not have been permanent. 2. According to the Italian authorities the number of official vets at the posts concerned has been increased and training courses on good animal welfare practices for staff and workers at the posts have been held. 3. The Commission does not consider sufficient use is being made of the possibilities offered by the directives. However, because Council Directive 95/0029/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Directive 91/0628/ EEC concerning the protection of animals during transport, does not apply outside the territory of the Community, legal difficulties do exist in enforcing the national legislation transposing these texts where the neglect or mistreatment of the animals occurred before they reach the Italian frontier. 4. If infringement proceedings are brought against a Member State by the Commission, and the Court of justice subsequently finds that the Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty, and the Member State concerned fails to comply with the judgement, the Commission may open a second case under Article 228 (2) of the EC Treaty (ex Article 171) and request that a lump sum or penalty be paid by the Member State concerned. If the Court of justice finds that the Member State has not complied with its judgement, it may impose such a payment, the maximum amount of which is not specified in the EC Treaty. Furthermore, Commission Regulation (EC) 0615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed application rules for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (1) make conditional the granting of the export refund on the satisfactory implementation of the provisions of Directive 91/0628/EEC. Accordingly there is a direct consequence on the financing, by the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF), of the refunds in cases where substantial breaches of the animal welfare conditions are noted. 5. The Commission is reviewing the matter in the light of a recent FVO report and further evidence supplied by animal welfare groups with a view to possibly opening proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) EC Treaty. The Commission also intends to give further attention to the possibility of conclusion of bilateral agreements with the third countries concerned as a means of overcoming the problems of enforceability mentioned above. The findings of the inspections on the spot carried out by the Commission have to be assessed in respect of the refund granted for bovine animals exported via the border inspection post concerned. (1) OJ L 82, 19. 3. 1998. (2000/C 170 E/162) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1989/99 by Norbert Glante (PSE)to the Commission (28 October 1999) Subject: Commission measures to prepare a decision on price-fixing for books In its resolution (B4-0991/98) of 20 November 1998 on common book price-fixing across borders (1), the European Parliament made the following decisions, inter alia: 2. Calls on the Commission, before a final decision is taken concerning the procedures outstanding, to establish reliable and comparable indicators and information on the overall situation and the situation in sections of the book markets in individual Member States and language areas of the EU; 20. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 170 E/135 Calls on the Commission to organise a public hearing, with the participation of representatives 4. of the cross-border book trade, on the issue of price-fixing as well as on a review of the meaning of Article 128(4) of the EC Treaty and on other aspects relating to competition, culture and consumer policy; 5. Calls on the Commission to adapt its Community policy on the book-price agreement to the cultural requirements referred to above, especially in cross-border linguistic areas, and to authorise the continuation of existing systems of fixed book prices, especially in the same linguistic areas; 6. Calls for binding rules to be laid down which will enable not only national systems of fixed book prices but also bilateral agreements on fixed book prices within single linguistic areas to be declared legal and not in breach of the rules on competition. What steps and measures has the Commission taken to satisfy these demands made by the European Parliament? (1) OJ C 379, 7. 12. 1998, p. 391. Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1999) As regards paragraph 2 of Parliamentís resolution (B4-0991/98) on the book price-fixing arrangement between Germany and Austria, the Commission has carried out over a number of years a wide-ranging investigation into the book sector in the Member States, consulting a variety of sources including publishers and booksellers in Germany and Austria, and has conducted a market analysis, the aim being to adopt a Commission decision on the notification submitted to it by German and Austrian publishers and on the various complaints received. In the course of the investigation, the notifying parties and the complainants in the current proceedings were also able to submit extensive information about the situation on the book market in the Community. The Commission therefore has all the indicators and the reliable information it needs to determine its definitive position in the matter. As regards paragraph 4, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that on 16 and 17 September 1998, as the procedural arrangements in force provide (1), it held a hearing of the parties, complainants and other third parties, especially writersí representatives, in order to ensure that the procedural rights of the parties concerned were fully respected. As regards paragraphs 5 and 6, the Commission would point out that any decision it adopts can be taken only within the legal framework laid down by the EC Treaty, as interpreted by the Community courts. Within that framework, when it comes to examining cross-border book price-fixing systems, the relevant provisions in force are those laid down in Article 81 (formerly Article 85) et seq. of the EC Treaty and the cultural clause in Article 151(4) (formerly Article 128(4)) of the EC Treaty. They permit a thorough case- by-case analysis in which all the relevant factors, including cultural factors, can be taken into account. The decisions that the Commission has already taken in this area and the related case law (2) are illustrative of this approach. Pursuant to Article 151(4) of the EC Treaty, the Commission is required to take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of the EC Treaty in order, among other things, to respect and promote the wide variety of cultures existing in the Community. When the Commission applies the EC Treaty rules on competition, it therefore considers, in a positive spirit, whether an agreement or a practice has cultural objectives and contains cultural provisions which are actually put into practice and may justify imposing restrictions on competition commensurate with the objectives in mind. These questions are considered with a view to the possible application of Article 81(3) (formerly Article 85(3)) of the EC Treaty, which lays down that the Commission may exempt restrictive agreements or practices the advantages of which outweigh the disadvantages as regards consumers, provided that they simply impose the restrictions indispensable to the attainment of their objectives and do not eliminate competi- tion in respect of a substantial part of the products in question. The Commission also takes account of any alterations which the parties may make to such agreements or practices. Cultural benefits may constitute advantages for consumers under this rule. Lastly, under Article 151(4) of the EC Treaty, a cross-border C 170 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 6. 2000 book price-fixing agreement cannot be exempted unless the agreement or practice in question satisfies all the conditions laid down in Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty, and this presupposes, among other things, that the cultural benefits adduced are clearly shown to exist. (1) Cf. Article 1 of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 ü First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ 13, 21. 2. 1962), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1216/1999 (OJ L 148, 15. 6. 1999) and Commission Regulation No 1999/0063/EEC of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 17 (OJ L 127, 20. 8. 1963); Regulation No 1999/0063/EEC has since been repealed and replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) 2842/98 of 22 December 1998 on the hearing of parties in certain proceedings under Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 354, 30. 12. 1998). (2) Cf. the Commissionís decisions of 25 November 1981 in VBBB and VBVB (OJ L 54, 25. 2. 1982) and of 12 December 1988 in Publishers Association ü Net Book Agreements (OJ L 22, 26. 1. 1989) and the judgments of the Court of Justice of 17 January 1984 in Joined Cases 43 and 63/82 VBVB and VBBB v Commission [1984] ECR 17, of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 1992 in Case T-66/89 Publishers Association v Commission [1992] ECR II-1995 and of Justice of 17 January 1995 in Case C-360/92 P Publishers Association v Commission [1995] ECR I-23. the Court of (2000/C 170 E/163) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1995/99 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission (9 November 1999) Subject: Guidelines on vertical restraints At the hearing in the EPís Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs the new Commissioner for competition emphasised the importance of transparency and clarity for the acceptance of EU legislation by the citizen. The draft guidelines on vertical restraints contain 225 individual points and highlight examples which cannot always be generalised. On the other hand,the extensive discussion of the relevant market still fails to include a clarification which would prevent producers in the smaller Member States from being disadvantaged. How does the Commission plan to create the greatest possible transparency in this area and to devise solutions which avoid the feared disadvantages? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (29 November 1999) The Honourable Member refers to the draft guidelines on vertical restraints that published, together with a draft block exemption regulation, on 24 September 1999 (1). the Commission The Commission considers that the new proposed policy will considerably simplify the rules applicable to vertical restraints and reduce the regulatory burden, as it will enable companies which lack market power (and most companies lack market power) to benefit from a safe harbour within which it will be no longer necessary for them to assess the validity of their agreements under the Community competition rules. In accordance with this new approach, the proposed block exemption regulation covers up to a market share threshold set at 30 % all vertical restraints concerning both intermediate and final goods, as well as services, except for a limited number of hardcore restraints and conditions. This removes certain major shortcomings in the three existing block exemption regulations concerning exclusive distribution, exclusive purchasing and franchising agreements, which have been widely criticised in recent years for being too narrow in scope, over formalistic in their approach and for imposing on industry a strait-jacket incompatible with the evolution of production and distribution methods. The simplification brought about by the new proposed policy will in particular benefit small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which will be largely covered by the new regulation