WRITTEN QUESTION E-2075/99 by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Liberalisation in the context of the WTO negotiations.
20. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 170 E/143 Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1999) In the framework of the Community rules on competition and, in particular, Council Regulation (EC) 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1) (Merger Regulation), the Commission examines mergers and acquisitions where certain minimum turnover thresholds are achieved by the companies concerned (concentrations having Commun- ity dimension). The parties to such concentrations have to notify the project to the Commission and are as a rule not allowed to implement it before the receipt of a clearance decision. If a concentration threatens competition in a distinct market within a Member State the Commission, according to Article 9 of the Merger Regulation, has the possibility to refer the examination of such a concentration to the Member State, provided it receives a reasoned request for referral from the authorities. On 5 October 1999, the Commission received a notification of the proposed merger between Carrefour and Promodes. The operation will create the largest European player in the food retail sector. The main effects of the merger will be in countries where the partiesí businesses overlap: Spain, France, Italy and Portugal. In order to assess the case, the Commission looks carefully at the regional and local aspects of distribution. At the present stage the operation is under examination and a market investigation has been launched. If the Commission after its market investigation comes to the conclusion that a concentration would create or strengthen a dominant position impeding effective competition (monopoly or joint dominant position of several undertakings), it will declare the proposed deal incompatible with the common market unless the parties propose to adapt their initial project in order to make it compatible. So far, the Commission has examined around two dozen cases in the food retail sector in various European economic area (EEA) Member States. In one case, the proposed concentration between Kesko and Tuko (M. 784;1996), both Finnish companies active in the sale of daily consumer goods in Finland, the Commission concluded that the operation would create a monopolistic supply structure in large parts of the Finnish market, with combined market shares of 50 % on a national level. The concentration was therefore declared incompatible with the common market. In another case, Tesco/ABF (M. 914; 1997), concerning the food retail sector in Ireland and Northern Ireland, the Commission cleared the case taking note of undertakings offered by the parties to the Irish government with regard to the supply-side. In the case Rewe/Meinl (M. 1221;1998), concerning the Austrian food retail sector, the Commission cleared the concentration subject to stringent conditions, limiting the proposed deal to one third of the targetís turnover and to certain regions of Austria. Two other cases, Promodes/Casino (the parties later abandoned the project) (M. 991;1997) and Promodes/S21/Gruppo GS (M. 1086;1998) were partially referred to the Member States concerned, and consequently dealt with by the French and Italian competition authorities. At this preliminary stage of its review of the Carrefour/Promodes merger, the Commission is not in a position to express any view of the possible outcome of its investigations. (1) OJ L 180, 9. 7. 1997. (2000/C 170 E/174) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2075/99 by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE) to the Commission (12 November 1999) Subject: Liberalisation in the context of the WTO negotiations The WTO Millennium Round is scheduled to include negotiations on further liberalisation in the agricultural sector. Further liberalisation is appropriate, however, only if it helps to increase the prosperity of farmers and consumers. C 170 E/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 6. 2000 Has there already been an official evaluation by the WTO and/or the Commission of the impact that 1. the Agreement on Agriculture reached during the GATT Uruguay Round has had on prices and incomes in the EU, the USA and the rest of the world (evaluations up to and including 1999)? How does the Commission evaluate the impacts of the GATT Uruguay Round? I would appreciate an 2. evaluation not only of the two exceptional years 1995 and 1996 but for the whole period from 1995 until 1999. I would similarly appreciate it if the assessment focused predominantly on quantities and price trends in the markets rather than simply on the development of world trade in value terms. 3. 4. Has liberalisation actually produced benefits for the consumer? Have food prices fallen, and to what extent? Has food safety and quality improved as a result of the opening up of markets and the SPS 5. agreement? 6. What view should be taken in this context of the WTO panel that monitors the prohibition of imports of beef produced with the aid of growth hormones? 7. What is the relationship between the expansion of world trade and the general trend in incomes in the EU and other WTO member countries, and how is any rise in incomes distributed among the population? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (7 December 1999) The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible. (2000/C 170 E/175) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2077/99 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission Subject: Implementation in Greece of Directive 89/48 (12 November 1999) In its judgment of 23 March 1995 (Case C 365/93), the Court of Justice ruled that Greece had failed to implement Community Directive 89/48 (1) on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three yearsí duration. Since complaints from members of the public have shown that DIKATSA, the Greek public organisation responsible for the recognition of such diplomas, has failed to comply with the Directive in question, will the Commission say whether Greece is implementing the ruling of the Court of Justice? If not, what measures will the Commission take to bring Greek legislation into line with Community law? (1) OJ L 19, 24. 1. 1989, p. 16. Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (30 November 1999) As a result of Greeceís failure to comply with the Court of Justice judgment of 23 March 1995, the Commission initiated new infringement proceedings against Greece on 10 December 1997, accompanied by a request for a periodic penalty payment, for its failure to transpose Council Directive 89/0048/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three yearsí duration. The hearing at the Court of Justice took place on 20 October 1999