WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3098/97 by Bryan CASSIDY to the Commission. Commission investigation into the Dutch electrotechnical market
Date: 1997-10-02
Institutions: CASSIDY, European Parliament
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, application of EU law, competition law, complaint to the Commission, economic survey, electronics, restrictive trade practice

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134/81

According to the procedure provided by Article 169 of the EC Treaty, the Commission gave Germany the

1.
opportunity to submit its observations.

2.
A sanction according to Article 171 of the EC Treaty is foreseen only in a situation when a Member State
has failed to comply with a judgement of the Court of justice. Such a judgement does not exist in this case at
present.

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(98/C 134/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3098/97

by Bryan Cassidy (PPE) to the Commission

(2 October 1997)

Subject: Commission investigation into the Dutch electrotechnical market

In  March  1991,  the  Commission(cid:146)s  Directorate-General  IV  received  a  complaint  in  relation  to  alleged  cartel
activities  in  the  Dutch  electrotechnical  sector.  In  July  1996,  after  a  prolonged  five  year  investigation,  the
Commission issued a statement of objections setting out its views that certain wholesalers of electrotechnical
installation  material  and  their  trade  association  were  indeed  engaged  in  anti-competitive  activities.  These
activities have the effect of excluding foreign wholesalers from the Dutch market, thereby insolating the market
from the normal conditions of competition which prevail elsewhere in the EU. The result is that Dutch consumers
are obliged to pay significantly higher prices than those available to consumers in other EU Member States.

Commission procedural delays have had the effect of condoning the continuance of anti-competitive behaviour
over a six-year period. Can the Commission say when it intends to collude its investigation and adopt a decision
so as to ensure, in the public interest, that competition is restored as quickly as possible in the Dutch market for
electrotechnical installation material?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 1997)

The case referred to raises highly complex issues. The matter is still under investigation by the Commission as a
priority. In a case such as this extensive investigations have to be carried out into the whole of the industry sector.
Following this lengthy procedure, it is then necessary to ensure that all respondents obtain satisfactory access to
all relevant available information. Respondents all have the right to make their comments on such information,
which also must be investigated thoroughly. In this particular case, there are seven respondents. This procedure
has now been completed and a hearing is planned with the respondents for the third week of November 1997. At
all  times  during  the  investigation,  the  Commission  must  ensure  that  no  confidential  information  is  released
without the prior express permission of the relevant party. Before the hearing has taken place it is not possible for
the Commission to foresee whether or when a formal decision will be issued.

(98/C 134/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3099/97

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 1997)

Subject: EU research and support for the jojoba and euphorbia tree species

In its answer to my question (P-2564/97 (1)) concerning jojoba and euphorbia trees, the Commission stated that
research had confirmed their potential as alternative agricultural crops in the Mediterranean.