EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/80

(2004/C 33 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0772/03

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject: Ruling of the Netherlands Competition Authority (NMA), Case No 2269, concerning the shrimp wholesale trade and fisheries regarding price agreements

1. Is the Commission aware of the ruling of the Netherlands Competition Authority (NMA), Case No 2269, concerning the shrimp wholesale trade and fisheries regarding price agreements?

2. Is the Commission prepared to enter into consultations with the producer organisations and representatives of the Netherlands Government in the very near future to consider which agreements should be made?

3. Does the Commission agree that the NMA ruling is at odds with European policy to encourage producer organisations to take a sustainable approach to our fish stocks?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2003)

The Commission is aware of the decision of 14 January 2003 whereby the Netherlands Competition Authority (Nma) has imposed fines totalling EUR 13,781 million on eight wholesale traders in shrimps, and four Dutch, three German and one Danish producer organisation in the shrimp fishery industry, for infringements of the European and Dutch competition rules prohibiting cartels. In its decision the NMa has established, first of all, that the producer organisations and the wholesaler traders entered into agreements with each other to limit the size of the catch of North-Sea shrimps and to set minimum prices and secondly, that these agreements were also implemented in the period from January 1998 until February 2000.

The Commission has frequent contacts with producer organisations by way of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture. The questions at issue in the present instance were discussed at the Advisory Committee on 26 February 2003. Furthermore, these questions were discussed with Member States at the meeting of the Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products on 7 March 2003. The Commission is ready to hold further discussions with interested parties if they so wish.

The Commission does not concur with the Honourable Member's opinion that the NMa ruling is at odds with European policy. It is correct that the main objective of the reform of the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture by way of Regulation No 104/2000 (1) is to ensure that the production and marketing of fishery products take account of the need to support sustainable fishing. It is, therefore, designed to comprise measures which ensure a better match between supply and demand. To this end, producer organisations have been entrusted with specific tasks. This is in line with the sustainability focus of the Common Fisheries Policy, a feature which has been clearly strengthened by the most recent package of decisions on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, which the Council adopted in December 2002. It is clear, however, that there cannot be a conflict between sustainability requirements and competition rules as long as producer organisations stick to acting within the bounds of their lawful tasks under the Common Fisheries Policy. Inversely, sustainability considerations may not be used as an argument to justify practices, such as collusive action between producer organisations and wholesale traders concerning minimum prices and catch limits, which fall outside the lawful tasks of producer organisations as specified in the relevant legal instruments and which violate the European competition rules.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, OJ L 17, 21.1.2000.