WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2249/97 by Luigi CALIGARIS to the Commission. Direct negotiations on exclusive purchase between oil companies and service station managers in Italy
Date: 1997-07-02
Institutions: CALIGARIS, European Parliament
Subjects: EU law, Italy, competence of the Member States, competition law, economic agreement, exclusive purchasing agreement, motor fuel, oil industry, supply













EUR-Lex - 91997E2249 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E2249

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2249/97 by Luigi CALIGARIS to the Commission. Direct negotiations on exclusive purchase between oil companies and service station managers in Italy  


Official Journal C 102 , 03/04/1998 P. 0019 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2249/97 by Luigi Caligaris (ELDR) to the Commission (2 July 1997)Subject: Direct negotiations on exclusive purchase between oil companies and service station managers in ItalyOil companies have drawn up unilateral economic agreements (direct negotiations), which are all virtually identical, applicable to the annual negotiations with individual service station managers for the exclusive purchase of fuels and non-oil products.The legitimacy of this system has already been called into question by the authority responsible for competition and markets at Community and national level on the basis of Community Regulation No 1984/83 ((OJ L 173, 30.6.1983, p. 1. )) of 22 June 1983 and national law No 287/90 of 10 October 1990.1. Will the Commission say whether the behaviour of the oil companies and the individual clauses in the direct agreements between oil companies and managers comply with the rules of competition?2. Will it say whether the clauses concerning non-oil products are compatible with Community law?Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (4 September 1997)The Commission has received a complaint concerning the contracts concluded in Italy between oil companies and fuel retailers.Normally the Commission carries out a preliminary examination of a complaint before stating what action it intends to take.In its preliminary examinations, the Commission takes account of the Community interest of the cases submitted to it and the existence of alternative remedies for the complainants.In this particular instance, the Commission has carried out a careful examination of the complaint and invited the complainants to come and argue their case at a meeting held in Brussels. Following its examination, the Commission notes that the main effects of the agreements are confined to Italy and that the conformity of the agreements with Community law must be examined in the light of the relevant Regulation ((Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements - OJ L 173, 30.6.1983; Corrigendum OJ L 281, 13.10.1983. )).The Commission wrote to the complainants on 23 December 1996 asking them to submit their comments on its preliminary position, summarised below:The Commission pointed out to the complainants that the national courts had jurisdiction to examine agreements under Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty and the block exemption Regulation No 1984/83. The national court may declare agreements void pursuant to Article 85(2) of the EC Treaty.The Commission informed the complainants that it takes the view that the complaint does not involve sufficient Community interest for it to take action.Furthermore, the Commission notes that only the national court can award the complainants any damages to offset the losses incurred as a result of the contracts.Lastly, the Commission notes that the existence of a block exemption regulation covering the agreements in question can be taken into account in deciding not to examine a complaint since the very purpose of a block exemption regulation is to limit notifications and the individual examination of agreements in the relevant sector. In addition, any such block exemption regulation makes it easier for national courts to implement Community law.In accordance with its policy in such cases, the Commission has not carried out an in-depth examination of the agreements so as not to prejudice the position which the national courts might adopt if the matter were referred to them.