WRITTEN QUESTION No. 202/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Commission. Budget line on the family
Date: 1998-02-11
Institutions: European Parliament, HAGER
Subjects: Community budget, family, family policy, implementation of the budget, legal basis

2. 10. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 304/51

originally subject to price agreements are reimported from countries other than the Member States and are not
subject to further price agreements provided they are not transactions for the purpose of evading the law? If this
opinion is not accepted, the requirements for derogation pursuant to Article 85(3) EC Treaty are fulfilled on the
basis of an assessment of competition law which takes account of the cultural aspect of book price agreements.

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 1998)

The  Commission  has  consistently  maintained  that  the  Council(cid:146)s  initiative  in  instructing  the  Commission  to
prepare a report pursuant to Article 152 of the EC Treaty should be considered independent of the competition
proceedings concerning the German/Austrian price-fixing scheme for books ((cid:145)Buchpreisbindung(cid:146)) provided that
the  proceedings  in  question  are  not  impeded  as  a  result.  In  this  competition  case,  in  which  the  publishers
submitted  the  notification  in  the  spring  of  1993  and  for  which  the  Commission  is  solely  competent,  formal
proceedings  had  to  be  instituted  after  the  Commission  had  made  a  careful  examination  of  the  publishers(cid:146)
arguments and come to the provisional conclusion that exemption was not justified.

The report was submitted by the parties to the proceedings. It concludes that Article 85(1) is no longer applicable
to  the  German/Austrian  price-fixing  scheme  for  books  because  Article  128(4)  had  been  inserted  into  the  EC
Treaty by the Treaty on European Union. This contradicts the settled case law of the Court of Justice as the
report(cid:146)s author acknowledges (he states that his opinion goes beyond previous case law and decision-making
practice). In 1995, quite some time after Article 128(4) had been inserted, the Court of Justice based itself on the
self-evident  fact  that  Article  85(1)  was  applicable  to  the  cross-border  price-fixing  scheme  involving  the
United  Kingdom  and  Ireland.  The  possible  advantages  of  any  price-fixing  agreement  are  always  initially
examined under Article 85(3).

It is unclear from the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question why she assumes that the conditions for exemption were
met. As stated above, the Commission reached its provisional conclusion that the conditions for exemption had
not been met after a careful examination of all the arguments put forward and on the basis of statistically sound
data.

(98/C 304/71)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0202/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(11 February 1998)

Subject: Budget line on the family

Can the Commission state what measures have been financed under budget line B3-4108: Measures in support of
the family and what the appropriate legal bases are under primary legislation?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 1998)

In 1997, the Commission financed a number of measures under budget line B3-4108: (cid:145)Measures in support of the
family(cid:146). The commitments (almost ECU 2.5 million) went to cover the cost of financing analysis and research
into the family and family policies, exchange of experience and information among Member States on subjects
connected with the family, particularly ways of reconciling family and working life; child protection measures
and population studies.

The budget was implemented in conformity with the Commission communication of 6 July 1994 concerning the
legal bases (1)

(1)  Doc. SEC (94) 1106 final.