WRITTEN QUESTION E-3993/00

by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Complaints and individual exemptions forwarded by the Verband innovativer Kfz-Unternehmer und Handelsvertreter e.V. (Association of Innovative Motor Vehicle Manufacturers and Trade Representatives) to the Commission

On 13 January 2000, the Verband innovativer Kfz-Unternehmer und Handelsvertreter e.V. (Association of Innovative Motor Vehicle Manufacturers and Trade Representatives) (abbr. VIKH) called for several individual exemptions, or negative clearances, for a series of contracts, including authorisation documentation for (a) a system of establishment by various car manufacturers; (b) Aral AG contracts with petrol station leaseholders; (c) refusal of membership of the Federal Employment Office; and (d) an insurance contract with the DBV-Versicherung insurance company.

On 16 October 2000 the VIKH forwarded several complaints to the Commission:

1. VIKH v. Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) in the Platte/Mazda Case breach of Decision 75/73/EEC and Article 81(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

2. VIKH v. FRG in the Blei/Ulrich Case prohibited double payment;

3. VIKH v. FRG in the Blei/Sparkasse Hückeswagen Case breach of regulation to prevent abuse;

4. VIKH v. FRG in the Blei/GEMA Case breach of regulation to prevent abuse;

5. VIKH v. FRG in the Blei/GEZ Case prohibited double payment.

In a fax sent on 26 October 2000 (4.08 p.m.), without providing clarification as to which matters it was referring to, the Commission stated that it was not in a position to follow up any of the above-mentioned complaints. All the cases mentioned are connected in so far as the Commission has been accused of failing to take action regarding the call for documentation and concerning the suspected breaches of European law.

1. What are the reasons for the Commission's failure to deal with the above individual exemptions and negative clearances which according to Article 81(3) come under its exclusive jurisdiction? Why does the Commission refuse to follow up the VIKH's complaints?

2. What position does the Commission take concerning the accusations made in the VIKH's complaints with regard to the violation of EU competition regulations by firms and institutions in Germany?

3. If it is the Commission's view that these matters come under the sole jurisdiction of the Member State, what criteria do the proposals or complaints have to meet in order for the Commission to take them into account and consider applying further measures?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

1. Concerning the individual exemptions and negative clearances mentioned by the Honourable Member the Commission is not in possession of any application. Insofar as it was presented to the Commission in the cases mentioned by the Honourable Member, that there would be infringements of Community law present, Directorate General Competition has acted as follows.

2. In the Platte/Mazda case the Commission has rejected the complaint due to lack of Community interest. In the Blei/Ulrich and Blei/Sparkasse Hückeswagen cases, answering the informal request of the party concerned, Directorate General Competition has informed it that the cases, since containing no clue for an infringement of the competition rules of the Treaty, do not enjoy priority. With regard to the complaints in Blei/GEMA and Blei/GEZ cases, Directorate General Competition has informed the complainant that for the time being it does not see any reason to further investigate the cases, either because they do not contain a clue for an infringement of the competition rules of the EC Treaty or due to lack of Community interest, respectively.

3. If a matter falls under the exclusive competence of a Member State, the Commission cannot handle the case.