WRITTEN QUESTION E-1342/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: IAF and the Directorate-General for Competition

Last February, Members of the European Parliament received a dossier from the IAF (International Automobile Federation) concerning the not altogether transparent links between the Directorate-General for Competition and the Federation. Enclosed with the dossier was a copy of a letter sent on 1 February 2000 to the Commissioner responsible, formally asking him to state his position on four points.

In the interests of improving transparency in the relations between certain much-discussed departments and their contacts in the relevant sector, and ensuring public accountability, would the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Did the Commission reply to the IAF's requests?

2. If so, what was the substance of the Commission's replies?

3. If not, why were the complaints that had been made not followed up?

4. When will the Commission take the necessary decisions to ensure transparency and honesty, which were called for on all sides when the last Commission was turned out of office?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

The Honourable Member's questions relate to a competition investigation which continues.

As regards parliamentary questions on pending cases, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the letter of the former member responsible for Competition dated 28 January 1999 to the former Chairman of the Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy. In his letter, the responsible member explained that only limited, general and non-confidential information can be provided in relation to pending cases.

As to the Honourable Member's questions, the Commission would like to reply as follows:

1. Yes, the Commission has replied to the International automobile federation (IAF) public letter of 1 February 2000.

2. The member responsible for Competition made a public statement immediately following the publication of the IAF's letter. In this statement the responsible member noted that the major part of the criticism of the Commission's behaviour was based on events which happened already in December 1997 and which led to an order of the Court of first instance on 6 December 1999 after IAF had withdrawn a claim against the Commission for damages.

He also said that, as already in the past, the IAF was criticising the behaviour of an individual competition official. Such criticisms had previously turned out to be totally unfounded. The responsible member stated that the new criticism had already been subject of an internal investigation which concluded that it was equally unjustified.

3. As explained in point 2 above, the Commission did reply to the IAF's public letter of 1 February 2000.

4. In this case, the Commission took all the necessary measures to ensure transparency and proper casehandling. In particular, the Commission informed the public of all important developments in the case by a notice of 27 November 1997 summarising the notified agreements, by a press release of 29 June 1999 summarising its objections and by the spokesman's statement of 5 May 2000 on the postponement of the oral hearing and the settlement discussions with the IAF.