WRITTEN QUESTION No. 891/97 by Pedro MARSET CAMPOS to the Commission. The future of independent repair workshops in Spain
Date: 1997-03-12
Institutions: European Parliament, MARSET CAMPOS
Subjects: after-sales service, copyright, designs and models, free competition, industrial property, information, monopoly, motor vehicle industry, spare part













EUR-Lex - 91997E0891 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0891

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 891/97 by Pedro MARSET CAMPOS to the Commission. The future of independent repair workshops in Spain  


Official Journal C 373 , 09/12/1997 P. 0035 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0891/97 by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (12 March 1997)Subject: The future of independent repair workshops in SpainThe regulation on the motor vehicle industry adopted last year by the Commission EEC 1475/95 ((OJ L 145, 29.6.1995, p. 25. )) laid down arrangements for freedom of technical information for all vehicle repair workshops in Europe and authorized vehicle manufacturers to withhold, by way of exception, certain technical information relating to the design of new vehicles.The future adoption of the 'Eurodesign', consisting of the right of the manufacturer launching the product on the market to monopolize technical information on the new product for a given period of time, seriously jeopardizes this principle of freedom of information.Given that the operating lifetime of a vehicle is relatively short, the right to withhold information will oblige consumers to have their vehicles repaired by franchised workshops during most of the operating lifetime of those vehicles, thereby helping to ensure that a real monopoly is maintained. This will become a total monopoly if the 'Eurodesign' is valid for a 10-year period.1. In view of the provisions of Articles 85 and 86 of the TEU, does the Commission not believe that the substance and implications of the future 'Eurodesign' should be radically revised?2. What action does the Commission think the Member States should take to ensure freedom of competition and consumers' rights, as stipulated in the Treaty, when the 'Eurodesign' is applied?3. Does the Commission believe that the existence of a 'Eurodesign' which provides for information to be reserved over a long period is compatible with keeping small and medium-sized workshops in business and hence with maintaining or creating jobs in that sector?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (14 May 1997)The Commission proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive on the legal protection of designs ((COM(96) 66. )) is intended to strike the right balance between affording a high degree of protection to holders of commercial and industrial property rights and ensuring free competition within the internal market. The approach adopted is also in keeping with the Commission's policies on employment, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and consumer protection. The proposal includes a repair clause (Article 14) permitting visible components of complex products such as cars to be reproduced by independent firms provided that fair and reasonable remuneration has been offered to the rightholder.On 13 March 1997 the Council unanimously adopted a common position no longer containing a repair clause but permitting Member States (via a standstill) to maintain or introduce any provision preventing the use of spare parts produced by independent firms for the repair of a complex product so as to restore its original appearance.The Commission considers that its proposal, as amended in the light of the changes proposed by Parliament at first reading, strikes a balance between the interests of car manufacturers, on the one hand, and spare part manufacturers, insurers and consumers, on the other. While welcoming the overall progress made, the Commission regrets the Council's stance on this particular aspect of the repair clause. The text will now be sent to Parliament for its second reading.In answer to the specific points raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission does not see the need to make radical changes to the proposed Directive, which, for the reasons set out above, reconciles the widest possible range of interests. It will merely emphasize the need for the repair clause to be reinstated. If this is not done, it will be for Member States to introduce national legislation as they see fit. Lastly, the actual protection period for design rights must not preclude altogether profitable subsequent exploitation by independent firms. Accordingly, the Commission took up Parliament's amendment abolishing any time-limit for the reproduction of components against payment of a remuneration to the rightholder.In the event that Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty are breached, the Commission will, of course, take whatever action is necessary.