WRITTEN QUESTION No. 784/98 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. Italian trading rules
Date: 1998-03-18
Institutions: ANGELILLI, European Parliament
Subjects: EU control, European Commission, Italy, application of EU law, discount store, job cuts, national law, restriction on competition, shopping centre, trade licence

9. 10. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 310/129

(98/C 310/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0784/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(18 March 1998)

Subject: Italian trading rules

The recent legislative decree regulating trade approved by the Council of Ministers of the Italian Republic of
16 January 1998 (implementing the authorization in Article 4 of Law 59/97) provides for the total abolition of the
licence for small trading concerns of up to 300 m2 (Article 4), abolition of the registration requirement for traders
setting  up  in  business  (Article  5)  and  consolidation  of  the  present  14  marketing  tables  in  just  two  sectors:
foodstuffs and non-foodstuffs (Article 5(1)).

These rules will lead to anarchy on the market and serious imbalances and will be detrimental to small concerns
that represent about 900 000 small businesses; they will also lead to the loss of some 60 000 jobs. With this
decree, the actual value of the trading licence (which in many cases is high) would be reduced to zero, causing
economic damage to those who acquired it previously and possibly violating Article 85 of the EC Treaty. In fact
new concerns would have an advantage in that they could compete unfairly precisely because they would not
have to meet any costs › as in the past › to set up in business. Lastly, the liberalization granted for areas under
300  m2  will  merely  lead  to  an  excessive  proliferation  of  mini-markets,  stores  and  discount  warehouses  in  a
country such as Italy in which the average size of trading concerns is around 100 to 120 m2.

Do these measures not conflict with Directives 64/223/EEC (1) and 68/363/EEC (2) on wholesale and retail

1.
trading?

Do they not conflict with the Green Paper on trade (Bulletin of the EU, Supplement 2/97) which calls for

2.
grater liberalization of the sector but stresses the need to protect jobs at the same time?

3. Might they not endanger free competition?

4. What is the Commission(cid:146)s general reaction?

(1)  OJ 56, 4.4.1964, p. 863.
(2)  OJ L 260, 22.10.1968, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 1998)

The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and
will inform her of the outcome as soon as possible.

(98/C 310/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0787/98

by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 March 1998)

Subject: Threat to the badger (Meles meles) in the United Kingdom

Is  the  Commission  familiar  with  the  Kerb(cid:146)s  report  which  states  that  there  is  as  yet  no  scientific  proof  that
tuberculosis (bovine TB) is transmitted by badgers to cattle, and with the report(cid:146)s recommendation that this result
should  be  tested  by  exterminating  all  badgers  over  a  period  of  five  years  in  ten  areas  each  of  100  km2  and
exterminating badgers in an area of equivalent size where bovine TB has occurred, which is estimated will cost
the lives of 10 000 to 15 000 badgers?

Does the Commission agree that this experiment is highly undesirable?

Is the Commission of the opinion that this experiment runs counter to current policy practice in the UK which is
based on European nature conservation policy and that it therefore violates European nature policy?