WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2930/97 by Florus WIJSENBEEK to the Commission. Presumed corruption of Belgian gendarmerie
Date: 1997-09-17
Institutions: European Parliament, WIJSENBEEK
Subjects: Belgium, EU law - national law, EU national, carrier, corruption, fine, offence, paramilitary force, road transport, services company

16. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 117/29

Is the Commission further aware of arrangements applicable to fines imposed on foreign drivers in other Member
States  and  whether  these  too  might  frequently  be  open  to  interpretation  as  discriminatory?  Would  the
Commission be prepared to take stock of systems for imposing fines or other discriminatory arrangements in
other countries, and to test them against the above judgment?

Will  the  Commission  deal  speedily  with  the  complaint  by  the  Dutch  road  transport  undertakings  and  will  it
ensure the immediate introduction of an appropriate and equitable system of fines in Belgium, and possibly in
other  Member  States  where  such  practices  are  current,  regardless  of  declarations  of  intent  to  bring  national
legislation into line with European law by an as yet unspecified date?

If so, how? If not, why not?

(98/C 117/38)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2930/97

by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 September 1997)

Subject: Presumed corruption of Belgian gendarmerie

Is the Commission aware that the number of complaints about the actions of the Belgian authorities in carrying
out checks on road traffic is increasing exponentially (1).

Is the Commission also aware that when foreign drivers in particular are stopped for trivial infringements, fines
are  imposed  that  bear  no  relation  to  the  infringement  recorded,  and  are  imposed  in  ways  that  amount  to
discrimination against foreign drivers? Cases that have come to our attention include the treatment meted out on
28 June 1997 to the Kruiningen-based Meijer undertaking, which, because the fine imposed could not be paid in
Belgian currency, was, despite offering to pay in Netherlands currency, banned from continuing its journey and
had its vehicle towed away, it being seriously damaged in the process; and the treatment of the Hagestein-based
Leeuw undertaking, also in Belgium, in May 1997.

Is the Commission aware that percentages are paid by tow-away services in Belgium and France to the services
imposing the fines, including the Belgian gendarmerie?

Does  the  Commission  consider  such  practices  to  be  compatible  with  the  principle  of  non-discrimination  and
freedom to provide services as laid down in Article 75 of Directive 88/599 (2)?

Is  the  Commission  prepared  to  contact  the  national  authorities  with  a  view  to  calling  a  halt  to  inadmissible
practices of this kind (3)?

Is so how? If not, why not?

(1)  See my Written Question E-2607/97.
(2)  OJ L 325, 29.11.1988, p. 55.
(3)  See my question (H-0082/96) for Question Time at the April 1996 part-session › EP Report of Proceedings 4-480.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2607/97 and E-2930/97
given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 1997)

The Commission receives complaints from time to time concerning the manner in which checks are carried out
by the authorities of various Member States. There has been no exponential increase in complaints relating to the
Belgian authorities. However, the Commission is aware of the current anomaly within Belgian law under which
non-resident transport operators in Belgium who do not choose the specified on-the-spot fine but instead opt for
their case to be pursued through the courts are obliged to pay a higher amount for each offence. The Commission
has  asked  for  formal  confirmation  from  the  Belgian  authorities  that  they  have  the  necessary  legislative
amendments in hand to rectify this situation in the near future.