WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1739/98 by Michael ELLIOTT to the Commission. Microwave Ovenware Ltd/Dynopack - Commission investigation
Date: 1998-05-20
Institutions: ELLIOTT, European Parliament
Subjects: European Commission, committee of inquiry, complaint to the Commission, dominant position, restriction on competition, type of business

22.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 402/157

(98/C 402/209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1726/98

by Michael Hindley (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 1998)

Subject: EU aid to Kazakhstan

Would the Commission please provide a list of the schemes implemented and studies undertaken under TACIS or
other EU funding programmes in Kazakhstan identifying any partners and quoting the budget lines involved?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 1998)

EU aid to Kazakhstan is essentially implemented through the TACIS programme. This comprises a national
action programme and inter-state programmes (Inogate, Traceca, Warmap) under which Kazakhstan also
receives aid.

The current national action programme (1996-1997: ECU 25 million) is being sent direct to the Honourable
Member and Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat. The 1998-1999 national action programme is included in the 1999 EU
budget and will be negotiated after the summer. Kazakhstan also receives aid from (cid:145)democracy(cid:146) programmes
financed under budget head B-70 of the Community budget.

(98/C 402/210)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1739/98

by Michael Elliott (PSE) to the Commission

(20 May 1998)

Subject: Microwave Ovenware Ltd/Dynopack › Commission investigation

Further to the unanswered question submitted in March 1991 (No 631/91 (1)) regarding an investigation of
Dynopack over an alleged abuse of their market position, what action can the European Commission take should
it decide that information supplied previously by Dynopack was misleading?

Does the statement submitted by Newell represent such evidence and, if so, will the Commission reopen the
investigation into Dynopack before 22 May?

(1) OJ C 199, 29.7.1991, p. 26.

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 1998)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that a reply to his written question E-631/91 was sent to
him on 8 May 1991 (1).

The investigation undertaken following the complaint to which the Honourable Member refers was closed
following official rejection on 5 February 1993 of the complaint, as prescribed in Article 6 of Regulation
No 99/63/EEC of the Commission of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2) of Council
Regulation No 17 (2). Counsel for the complainant have recently contacted the Commission and are considering
the desirability of lodging a fresh complaint. Any such complaint will be dealt with on its merits in accordance
with the relevant procedures.

The statement by Newell mentioned to in the question has been studied, and will no doubt form part of a possible
future complaint. Of itself it does not, however, seem that the statement calls for any action on the Commission(cid:146)s
part, since it does not appear to suggest that incorrect or misleading information has been supplied to the
Commission in the context of a formal inquiry.

(1) OJ C 199, 29.7.1991.
(2) OJ 127, 20.8.1963.