WRITTEN QUESTION E-1752/99 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission. Supplements to daily newspapers and consumers' rights.
Date: 1999-10-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: consumer protection, dominant position, newspaper, preparation for market, press undertaking

20.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 170 E/93

Certain Member States currently exercise the possibility of limitations set out in Article 113 of Council
Regulation (EEC) 1315/88 of 3 May 1988 amending Regulation (EEC) 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the common customs tariffs and Regulation (EEC) 0918/83 setting up a Community
system of reliefs from customs duty (2) which states:

As regards the fuel contained in the standard tanks of commercial motor vehicles and special
containers, Member States may limit application of the (duty) relief to 200 litres per vehicle, per
special container and per journey.

the Council mandated the Commission to negotiate agreements with Bulgaria,
In December 1995,
Hungary and Romania, with the aim of determining certain conditions applied to the road transport of
goods and to the promotion of combined transport, in order to facilitate the transit of road vehicles
through the territory of contracting parties. Agreements were paraphed with Bulgaria in December 1998,
with Hungary in April 1999, and negotiations continue with Romania. However, the question of duty
relief on fuel quantities above 200 litres is still the subject of debate in the Council.

(1) OJ L 56, 27.2.1994.
(2) OJ L 123, 17.5.1988.

(2000/C 170 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1752/99

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(1 October 1999)

Subject:

(cid:145)Supplements(cid:146) to daily newspapers and consumers(cid:146) rights

A growing number of daily newspapers in certain countries of the European Union sell weekly supple-
ments. These supplements are sold on a given day of the week together with the normal edition of the
newspaper, the price of which is far higher on that day. Regular and occasional readers of the newspaper
concerned have no possibility of agreeing or declining to buy the (cid:145)supplement(cid:146).

Does the Commission not take the view that these practices violate consumers(cid:146) rights in that they oblige
them to buy two clearly distinct products?

Does the Commission not take the view that the concept of a supplement should imply that consumers
are free to decide whether or not they wish to purchase it by paying extra, but that the consumer should
in any case retain the right to purchase only the basic product (the daily newspaper) at the same price as
on the remaining days of the week?

What measures has the Commission taken or will it take to guarantee the right of consumers in this
respect?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 1999)

Unilateral decisions concerning the price of newspapers, including the sale of weekly supplements together
with the normal edition at a higher price, depend essentially on the free commercial choice of each
publisher and do not normally come under the competition rules of the Treaty, which prohibit restrictive
agreements (Article 81 EC, former Article 85) and the abuse of a dominant position (Article 82 EC, former
Article 86).

In the event,
it would appear that the higher price of newspapers sold with a supplement does not
correspond to a concerted practice among publishers of daily newspapers in all Member States. In some
cases the inclusion of the weekly supplement entails only a modest price increase or may even be free of
charge. Coordinated behaviour by all newspaper publishers with a view to adopting the same possibly
restrictive practice regarding the weekly supplement cannot therefore be demonstrated.

C 170 E/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2000

Further, since daily newspapers are at issue here rather than specialised publications, which, being
particularly authoritative in the area they cover, might more easily enjoy a very powerful position on the
market, no abuse of a dominant position can apparently be inferred. In general, a daily newspaper sold
with a supplement at a higher price is in competition in each Member State with other daily newspapers
which may or may not charge for the weekly supplement and is not therefore in what could be considered
to be a dominant market position, and this condition has to be met before Article 82 can be applied.

Accordingly, the practice described by the Honourable Member regarding the sale of daily newspapers
does not fall within the scope of Community competition law.

(2000/C 170 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1753/99

by Marcello Dell(cid:146)Utri (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Use of the structures for informing the general public

(1 October 1999)

According to data published by Eurobarometer (51.0 March-April 1999, fig. 2.8) only 3 % of European
citizens who need information on the European Union use the EU(cid:146)s information offices, the Euro info-
centres, the Euro info-points and the Euro-libraries.

In view of this, can the Commission say whether these figures can be considered satisfactory with reference
to the targets set, and whether the structures can be considered cost-effective?

If not, what does the Commission intend to do to improve the management of these structures so as to
make them more efficient and more responsive to citizens(cid:146) needs?

In view of the fact that the problem is partly due to the fact that few people even know that these
structures exist, can the Commission say what steps it intends to take to publicise them more?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 1999)

The figures to which the Honourable Member refers represent the average of the replies recorded in a
survey of the general public based on a representative sample of the entire population of each Member
State. A survey of this kind is better for measuring opinions and attitudes than specific patterns of
behaviour. The average recorded, 3 % of the population of the Member States, represents more than
12 million citizens. Although this figure is small compared to the total population of the Member States, it
still represents a not insignificant number of citizens who claim to search for information of their own
volition and who are aware of the existence of the information structures in place. Moreover, if you look
at the results for individual Member States, it is clear that, in certain cases, notably the Nordic countries
where there is a tradition of an active approach to information, the percentage of the population
approaching the Commission representations,
information offices and the
information relays is between 7 and 9 % of those surveyed, a significant result.

the European Parliament

It should be noted that not all types of information relay were explicitly listed in the question (cid:129) what
about, for instance, rural information and promotion (cid:145)carrefours(cid:146), documentation centres in universities or
urban forums? (cid:129) so how could the persons approached possibly have mentioned them?

It does not seem possible to make a direct connection between the number of citizens who are aware that
representations,
information centres and relays exist and the cost of these structures. Although the
Community representations, centres and relays do indeed exist to provide information to private citizens,
they often do this via intermediaries, such as television, the written press, political organisations and the
media, who, in turn, disseminate this information to the general public, who are generally unaware of the
source.