/dash CouncilDirective89/104/EECof21December1988toapproximatethelawsoftheMemberStates
relatingtotrademarks(6),
/dash Directive2000/13/ECoftheParliamentandoftheCouncilof20March2000ontheapproximation
ofthelawsoftheMemberStatesrelatingtothelabelling,presentationandadvertisingoffoodstuffs(7).
(1) COM(2003)23final.
(2) OJL208,24.7.1992.
(3) OJL198,22.7.1991.
(4) OJL185,25.7.2000.
(5) OJC252,12.9.2001.
(6) OJL40,11.2.1989.
(7) OJL109,6.5.2000.
(2004/C58E/088) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1485/03
byRichardCorbett(PSE)totheCommission
(2May2003)
Subject:Discriminationinbuildingsociety/bankshareconversion
1. Is the Commission aware that some UK banks/building societies appear to be using internal
administrativerulestodenytheirinvestorswhoresideincertainMemberStatesthesamebenefitsasthoseinvestors resident in other Member States, regarding allocation of shares when a building society isconvertedtoaplc?Inparticular,theBradfordandBingleyBuildingSocietyintheUKhasdeniedoneofits
investorsashareallocationduringtheBuildingSociety’sconversionintoaplcbecausetheinvestorlivedin
Austria,whereasinvestorswholiveinBelgium,France,Germany,UK,Ireland,SpainandtheNetherlandshavebeenallocatedtheseshares.
2. DoestheCommissionagreethatthisdiscriminationisincompatiblewiththeTreaty?
3. WhatactionwilltheCommissiontaketorectifythesituation?
AnswergivenbyMrBolkesteinonbehalfoftheCommission
(5June2003)
TheCommissionrecentlyreceivedacomplaintconcerningpossiblediscriminatorytreatmentatthetimeof
the process of demutualization of an entity in the United Kingdom. To reply to this complaint, the
CommissionrequestedtheassistanceoftheUnitedKingdomFinancialServicesAuthority(FSA).AccordingtotheFSA,intheprocessofdemutualizationofthatentity,itsmemberswereallottedsharesinthenewpubliclimitedcompanyascompensationforgivinguptheirmembershiprights,exceptforthosememberswhowereresidentincountriesotherthantheUnitedKingdomandwhoreceivecashinsteadofshares.The process of demutualization was governed by the company’s rules of constitution; it was agreedbetweenitsmembers;anditwasnotsubjecttothejurisdictionoftheFSA.Thisexceptionfornon-UnitedKingdomresidentswasapparentlymadewithaviewtotheperceivedextraexpenseinvolvedinissuingsharestonon-UnitedKingdomresidentsandtheinformationaboutthisenvisagedexceptionwasmadeavailabletoallmemberspriortotheabovementionedagreements.
Inthatcase,theCommissionconsideredthatneitherarticle12oftheECTreatynortheCommunitycase
lawofferedanysupporttopursuethematterfurther.TheCommissioncanonlystartaninfringementprocedureonthebasisofArticle226oftheECTreatyagainstaMemberSateifthatMemberStatehasfailedtofulfilanobligationundertheECTreaty.Inthiscase,theissueatstakeconcernsrightsgrantedamongstprivate parties andfalls,in the Commission’sopinion,within the competence ofthe Britishauthoritiesandcourts.C58E/72 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
FromtheinformationgiveninthewrittenquestionregardingtheallocationofsharesduringtheBuilding
Society’sconversionintoapubliclimitedcompany(plc),itisnotpossibletodeterminewhetherthereisdiscriminationongroundsofresidence.Inthiscase,unlikeinthepreviousone,thereisevenadifferenttreatment between those members who were resident in countries other than the United Kingdom.TheCommissionwillproceedtoobtainmoredetailedinformationonthispartofcaseandhaswrittentotheFSAforassistance.TheCommissionwillanalysewhetherthedifferenceswiththepreviouscaseabovementionedimplyanydiscriminationandwilltakethenecessarymeasuresifappropriate.
(2004/C58E/089) WRITTENQUESTIONP-1495/03
byJean-LouisBernié(EDD)totheCommission
(24April2003)
Subject:InterpretativeguidetotheBirdsDirective
TheCommissionhasforseveralmonthsbeenworkingontheinterpretativeguidetotheBirdsDirective.Parliamenthasneverbeeninvolvedinthedraftingofthisdocument,whichissupposedtoclarifythe
situationconcerningthehuntingseasonsformigratorybirds,particularlyinconnectionwithArticles7and9ofDirective79/409/EEC(
1).
TheCommissionhasrecentlyrequestedanopinionfromitsLegalServiceontheguide’scontent.
WouldtheCommissionstatewhetheritplanstosubmitthedocumenttotheEuropeanParliamentforits
opinion?Ifso,underwhichprocedureandatwhatstage?Ifnot,howdoestheCommissionproposetoinvolveEuropeanMPsintheprojectbeforethetextisfinallyagreed,bearinginmindthat254ofthemsignedawrittendeclarationinDecember2000callingforamendmentoftheBirdsDirective?
AndwouldtheCommissionstatewhethertheinterpretativeguidewillbeannexedtotheBirdsDirective,
andwhetheritwillbecontestablebeforetheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunities?
Finally,wouldtheCommissionprovidemewithacopyoftheFrenchversionofthedocumentsubmitted
toitsLegalService,andthelatter’sopinion?
(1) OJL103,25.4.1979,p.1.
AnswergivenbyMrsWallströmonbehalfoftheCommission
(22May2003)
TheCommissioniscommittedtoprovidingacopyoftheguidancedocumenttotheParliamentassoonas
ithasbeenfinalised,anditwillalsomakeacopyoftheFrenchversionavailabletotheHonourableMember.
AsaguidancedocumentitisbeingpreparedunderthesoleresponsibilityoftheCommission.Thereare
noprovisionsforformalconsultationoftheParliamentinthecontextofsuchdocuments.However,theCommissionhasalreadyindicatedthatthedocumentwillbepresentedtotheappropriateCommitteeandIntergroupsoftheParliament.
The documentis notitselfa legal instrument, andwillnotbe formallyannexed tothe Directive. In
addition,itneedstobestressedthattheCourtofJusticeretainsthesoleprerogative tointerpret the
provisionsoftheDirective.However,theCommissionintendstopromotetheguide,whichwillbewidelydisseminatedtoMemberStatesandthedifferentstakeholdergroups.6.3.2004EN C58E/73 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion