WRITTEN QUESTION E-2745/99 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Possible breach of Community law.
8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/199 (2000/C 225 E/225) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2742/99 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: Discrimination with regard to the right to the guaranteed minimum income in Luxembourg On 29 July 1999 the then Commissioner Padraig Flynn informed the Luxembourg trade union federation OGBL that he intended to open infringement proceedings against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty on the grounds that the law of 29 April 1999 contained provisions which were incompatible with the right to equal treatment and which appeared to be in breach of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) on freedom of movement for workers, and of Article 43 of the EC Treaty. The new law of 29 April 1999 reduced but did not abolish the minimum period of residence in Luxembourg required in order to be entitled to the guaranteed minimum income, a condition which places Luxembourg citizens at an advantage over citizens from other Member States resident in Luxembourg. Have proceedings been opened as announced, and if not, what will the Commission do to ensure that Luxembourg respects the right to freedom of movement and complies with Community legislation in this area? (1) OJ L 257, 19. 10. 1968, p. 2. Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (17 February 2000) In December 1999, the Commission decided to issue a reasoned opinion concerning the provisions of Luxembourg law on the entitlement to a guaranteed minimum income which make the granting of this benefit conditional upon a minimum of five yearsí residence in Luxembourg. In the Commissionís view, these provisions are indeed incompatible with the right to equal treatment laid down in Articles 39 and 43 (ex-Articles 48 and 52) of the EC Treaty and in Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of to which the 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement Honourable member refers. for workers within the Community (1), (1) OJ L 257, 19. 10. 1968, pp. 2-12. (2000/C 225 E/226) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2745/99 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: Possible breach of Community law Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (1), imposes on manufacturers the obligation to set up, apply and maintain quality systems, as set out in the Directive, extending right up to the time of placing on the market. However, Decision E 3/833/22-6-99 of the Ministry for Health and Welfare (Government Journal Issue 1329/B/29-6-99) extended manufacturersí obligations, in contravention of the above-mentioned Directive 93/42, to firms trading in such goods and even made their certification compulsory no later than one year from the publication of the ministerial decision referred to above, i. e. by 30 June 2000. In the light of the above, could the Commission say: ü whether this is a breach of European law, and ü what action it intends to take against the Greek Government to eliminate the adverse consequences of the above-mentioned provision? (1) OJ L 169, 12. 7. 1993, p. 1. C 225 E/200 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (24 February 2000) The Commission knows nothing about the Greek Ministerial Decision mentioned by the Honourable Member, which extends to distributors the obligations on manufacturers imposed by Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices. It will take the necessary steps to obtain full information on the matter raised and, if necessary, will not hesitate to initiate infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. (2000/C 225 E/227) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2752/99 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission (7 January 2000) Subject: Fixing of book prices The Commission is considering a complaint about the German-Austrian agreement on the fixing of book prices. I would therefore like to ask the Commission: 1. Does it believe that, given the protective function which competition is meant to perform, the current cross-border fixing of book prices complies with the requirement that the European Union contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States (Article 151 of the EC Treaty) and that this requirement should be rated higher than problems connected with competition law? 2. If not, does it consider national arrangements for the fixing of book prices which include a set of rules that take account of reimports to be compatible with Community law? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (27 January 2000) In 1993 German and Austrian publishers notified the Commission of cross-border arrangements for the fixing of book prices in Germany and Austria. Following this notification, various complaints were lodged against the said arrangements. With a view to adopting a decision, the Commission carried out a wide- ranging investigation into the book business in the Member States over a number of years. Various sources were consulted, including publishers and booksellers in Germany and Austria, and a market analysis was conducted. 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 has not yet completed its analysis of the cases in question and will not therefore anticipate its decision in the current proceedings. It can nevertheless answer the general questions raised by the Honourable Member. 1. 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 (1) 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