WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1111/99 by Paul RÜBIG Competition in the common market in surfboards
Date: 1999-04-15
Institutions: European Parliament, RUEBIG
Subjects: competition law, dominant position, merger control, oligopoly, restriction on competition, sports equipment

21.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 370/167

(1999/C 370/236)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1111/99

by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission

(15 April 1999)

Subject: Competition in the common market in surfboards

The objective of EU competition rules is to secure a competitive European internal market and prevent the
harmful consequences of a dominant position on the common market by one or more undertakings. A
large number of producers guarantees free competition and ensures free access to the market, thereby also
securing fundamentally more jobs than monopolistic or oligopolistic structures.

German sources report than the surfboard producing sector has been characterised by increasing market
concentration since the takeover of individual suppliers.

How does the Commission assess the market in surfboards and what shares of that market does it think
should be held by individual suppliers (if necessary without naming names but citing country of origin)?

What intended takeovers have been notified to the competition authority in the last six months?

Does the Commission consequently perceive a need to act in this connection, and what action has already
been taken or is about to be taken?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 1999)

Under European merger control rules (Council Regulation (EEC) 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the
control of concentrations between undertakings (1)) only large concentrations (mergers, acquisitions and
joint ventures) which have a Community dimension have to be notified to the Commission. A concentra-
tion has a Community dimension if the turnover of the undertakings concerned exceeds certain thresholds.
Normally the aggregate worldwide turnover of all the undertakings concerned has to be more than
€ 5 000 million and the Community-wide turnover of at least two undertakings concerned more than
€ 250 million. Concentrations that do not meet these thresholds fall under the jurisdiction of the Member
States’ competition authorities (such as the Bundeskartellamt in Germany). This is the case for the vast
majority of concentrations.

In its case practice to date, the Commission has not gained in-depth knowledge on the market for
surfboards. The Commission has not received any notification of a takeover concerning the surfboard
producing sector during the last six months, or any indication that a concentration has taken place in this
sector which would have to be notified under Council Regulation (EEC) 4064/89. Therefore, no merger
control procedure concerning the surfboard sector is pending.
It may be that national competition
authorities have dealt with relevant cases and can provide relevant information.

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.

(1999/C 370/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1119/99

by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Commission’s anti-doping programme

(20 April 1999)

The use of doping in sport has increased in spectacular fashion over recent years. Professionalisation, over-
commercialisation and the large sums of money involved in professional sport have turned many athletes
into machines of whom impossible feats are required. As a result, sportspeople frequently resort to drugs
and illegal substances which affect their health.