WRITTEN QUESTION E-0967/01

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Restrictive practices for sports equipment

Following its reply to my Oral Question QH-0929/00(1), has the Commission received any duly substantiated complaints?

Has it also received a submission from the Federation of European Sporting Goods Industries (FESI) on the multiplication of certification systems by sports federations?

Does it accept that certain sports federations go beyond what is required in terms of safety, sporting equality or technical necessities and have, in fact, turned their certification schemes into a commercial practice?

Are sports federations entitled to insist on their own labels even when, under the legislation, the equipment in question is subject to self-certification?

Does the Commission consider such practices to be consistent with Directive 89/686/EEC(2) and with competition law?

What action does the Commission intend to take?

(1) Written reply dated 13 December 2000.

(2) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989, p. 18.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2001)

The Commission confirms that, following its reply to the Honourable Member's Oral Question H-0929/00 during question time at Parliament's December 2000 part-session(1), it did receive a complaint concerning alleged restrictive practices in the field of sports equipment. This complaint is currently being examined in accordance with prescribed procedures.

The Commission read with great interest the submission from the Federation of European Sporting Goods Industries (FESI) on the multiplication of certification systems by sports federations and took note of its requests. Following the submission by FESI, an informal meeting was held between the Commission and a FESI representative during which the above topic was further discussed.

The Commission is aware of the fact that the role of sports federations has evolved in recent years and that the economic impact of sports organisations' regulations has become more and more important in recent years. In particular, the increased influence of commerce in the field of sports is noteworthy. This latter development, however, does not by itself allow the general conclusion that the activities of certain sports federations go beyond what is acceptable under relevant Community legislation and competition law.

From a competition law point of view, the question whether sports federations are entitled to insist on the use of their own certification labels is an issue which can only be assessed in the light of the relevant legal and economic context of each case. In general, however reference can be made to established Commission policy which provides that certification systems need to respect the following four criteria in order to fall outside the prohibition of Article 81(1) (ex Article 85) of the EC Treaty: openness, independence, transparency and acceptance of equivalent guarantees offered by other systems(2).

Furthermore, according to Article 8.3 of Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (PPE)(3), and modified by Council Directives 93/68/CEE of 22 July 1993(4), 93/95/CEE of 29 October 1993(5) and 96/58/CE of 3 September 1996 of the Parliament and of the Council(6), the rugby protective equipment referred to shall be submitted to the EC type-examination procedure described in its Article 10, which foresees that the manufacturer shall submit a model of the PPE he intends to place on the market to a Notified Body, i.e. an inspection body designated by the national authorities. The Notified Body establishes and certifies that the PPE model in question satisfies to the relevant provisions of the PPE Directive.

The Commission intends to continue its examination of the complaint it has received, while at the same time monitoring further general developments on the market for sports equipment.

(1) Written reply 13.12.2000.

(2) See joint Cases T-213/95 and T-18/96, SCK and FNK / Commission ECR II-1739.

(3) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989.

(4) OJ L 220, 30.8.1993.

(5) OJ L 276, 9.11.1993.

(6) OJ L 236, 18.9.1996.