WRITTEN QUESTION P-1989/99 by Norbert Glante (PSE)to the Commission. Commission measures to prepare a decision on price-fixing for books.
Date: 1999-10-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Germany, cultural pluralism, imposed price, intra-EU trade, linguistic group, publishing, restriction on competition

C 170 E/134

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2000

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1999)

The Commission is aware of the problems in relation to animal welfare at the frontier posts
1.
concerned. Several veterinary inspection missions of the Commission(cid:146)s food and veterinary office (FVO)
have been carried out in Gorizia and Prosecco. Following the missions, detailed recommendations were
submitted to the Italian authorities and some improvements were noted. Unfortunately the recent
complaints indicate that those improvements may not have been permanent.

2.
According to the Italian authorities the number of official vets at the posts concerned has been
increased and training courses on good animal welfare practices for staff and workers at the posts have
been held.

3.
The Commission does not consider sufficient use is being made of the possibilities offered by the
directives. However, because Council Directive 95/0029/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Directive 91/0628/
EEC concerning the protection of animals during transport, does not apply outside the territory of the
Community, legal difficulties do exist in enforcing the national legislation transposing these texts where the
neglect or mistreatment of the animals occurred before they reach the Italian frontier.

4.
If infringement proceedings are brought against a Member State by the Commission, and the Court
of justice subsequently finds that the Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty,
and the Member State concerned fails to comply with the judgement, the Commission may open a second
case under Article 228 (2) of the EC Treaty (ex Article 171) and request that a lump sum or penalty be
paid by the Member State concerned. If the Court of justice finds that the Member State has not complied
with its judgement, it may impose such a payment, the maximum amount of which is not specified in the
EC Treaty.

Furthermore, Commission Regulation (EC) 0615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed
application rules for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during
transport (1) make conditional the granting of the export refund on the satisfactory implementation of the
provisions of Directive 91/0628/EEC. Accordingly there is a direct consequence on the financing, by the
European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF), of the refunds in cases where substantial
breaches of the animal welfare conditions are noted.

5.
The Commission is reviewing the matter in the light of a recent FVO report and further evidence
supplied by animal welfare groups with a view to possibly opening proceedings under Article 226
(ex Article 169) EC Treaty. The Commission also intends to give further attention to the possibility of
conclusion of bilateral agreements with the third countries concerned as a means of overcoming the
problems of enforceability mentioned above. The findings of the inspections on the spot carried out by the
Commission have to be assessed in respect of the refund granted for bovine animals exported via the
border inspection post concerned.

(1) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.

(2000/C 170 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1989/99

by Norbert Glante (PSE)to the Commission

(28 October 1999)

Subject: Commission measures to prepare a decision on price-fixing for books

In its resolution (B4-0991/98) of 20 November 1998 on common book price-fixing across borders (1), the
European Parliament made the following decisions, inter alia:

2.
Calls on the Commission, before a final decision is taken concerning the procedures outstanding,
to establish reliable and comparable indicators and information on the overall situation and the
situation in sections of the book markets in individual Member States and language areas of the EU;

20.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 170 E/135

Calls on the Commission to organise a public hearing, with the participation of representatives
4.
of the cross-border book trade, on the issue of price-fixing as well as on a review of the meaning of
Article 128(4) of the EC Treaty and on other aspects relating to competition, culture and consumer
policy;

5.
Calls on the Commission to adapt its Community policy on the book-price agreement to the
cultural requirements referred to above, especially in cross-border linguistic areas, and to authorise the
continuation of existing systems of fixed book prices, especially in the same linguistic areas;

6.
Calls for binding rules to be laid down which will enable not only national systems of fixed book
prices but also bilateral agreements on fixed book prices within single linguistic areas to be declared
legal and not in breach of the rules on competition.

What steps and measures has the Commission taken to satisfy these demands made by the European
Parliament?

(1) OJ C 379, 7.12.1998, p. 391.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 1999)

As regards paragraph 2 of Parliament(cid:146)s resolution (B4-0991/98) on the book price-fixing arrangement
between Germany and Austria, the Commission has carried out over a number of years a wide-ranging
investigation into the book sector in the Member States, consulting a variety of sources including
publishers and booksellers in Germany and Austria, and has conducted a market analysis, the aim being
to adopt a Commission decision on the notification submitted to it by German and Austrian publishers
and on the various complaints received. In the course of the investigation, the notifying parties and the
complainants in the current proceedings were also able to submit extensive information about the
situation on the book market in the Community. The Commission therefore has all the indicators and
the reliable information it needs to determine its definitive position in the matter.

As regards paragraph 4,
the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that on 16 and
17 September 1998, as the procedural arrangements in force provide (1), it held a hearing of the parties,
complainants and other third parties, especially writers(cid:146) representatives,
in order to ensure that the
procedural rights of the parties concerned were fully respected.

As regards paragraphs 5 and 6, the Commission would point out that any decision it adopts can be taken
only within the legal framework laid down by the EC Treaty, as interpreted by the Community courts.
Within that framework, when it comes to examining cross-border book price-fixing systems, the relevant
provisions in force are those laid down in Article 81 (formerly Article 85) et seq. of the EC Treaty and the
cultural clause in Article 151(4) (formerly Article 128(4)) of the EC Treaty. They permit a thorough case-
by-case analysis in which all the relevant factors, including cultural factors, can be taken into account. The
decisions that the Commission has already taken in this area and the related case law (2) are illustrative of
this approach.

Pursuant to Article 151(4) of the EC Treaty, the Commission is required to take cultural aspects into
account in its action under other provisions of the EC Treaty in order, among other things, to respect and
promote the wide variety of cultures existing in the Community. When the Commission applies the
EC Treaty rules on competition, it therefore considers, in a positive spirit, whether an agreement or a
practice has cultural objectives and contains cultural provisions which are actually put into practice and
may justify imposing restrictions on competition commensurate with the objectives in mind. These
questions are considered with a view to the possible application of Article 81(3) (formerly Article 85(3))
of the EC Treaty, which lays down that the Commission may exempt restrictive agreements or practices
the advantages of which outweigh the disadvantages as regards consumers, provided that they simply
impose the restrictions indispensable to the attainment of their objectives and do not eliminate competi-
tion in respect of a substantial part of the products in question. The Commission also takes account of any
alterations which the parties may make to such agreements or practices. Cultural benefits may constitute
advantages for consumers under this rule. Lastly, under Article 151(4) of the EC Treaty, a cross-border

C 170 E/136

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2000

book price-fixing agreement cannot be exempted unless the agreement or practice in question satisfies all
the conditions laid down in Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty, and this presupposes, among other things, that
the cultural benefits adduced are clearly shown to exist.

(1) Cf. Article 1 of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 (cid:129) First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86
of the Treaty (OJ 13, 21.2.1962), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1216/1999 (OJ L 148, 15.6.1999) and
Commission Regulation No 1999/0063/EEC of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2)
of Council Regulation No 17 (OJ L 127, 20.8.1963); Regulation No 1999/0063/EEC has since been repealed and
replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) 2842/98 of 22 December 1998 on the hearing of parties in certain
proceedings under Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 354, 30.12.1998).

(2) Cf.

the Commission(cid:146)s decisions of 25 November 1981 in VBBB and VBVB (OJ L 54, 25.2.1982) and of
12 December 1988 in Publishers Association (cid:129) Net Book Agreements (OJ L 22, 26.1.1989) and the judgments
of the Court of Justice of 17 January 1984 in Joined Cases 43 and 63/82 VBVB and VBBB v Commission [1984]
ECR 17, of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 1992 in Case T-66/89 Publishers Association v Commission [1992]
ECR II-1995 and of
Justice of 17 January 1995 in Case C-360/92 P Publishers
Association v Commission [1995] ECR I-23.

the Court of

(2000/C 170 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1995/99

by Paul R(cid:252)big (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 November 1999)

Subject: Guidelines on vertical restraints

At the hearing in the EP(cid:146)s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs the new Commissioner for
competition emphasised the importance of transparency and clarity for the acceptance of EU legislation by
the citizen.

The draft guidelines on vertical restraints contain 225 individual points and highlight examples which
cannot always be generalised.On the other hand,the extensive discussion of the relevant market still fails to
include a clarification which would prevent producers in the smaller Member States from being
disadvantaged.

How does the Commission plan to create the greatest possible transparency in this area and to devise
solutions which avoid the feared disadvantages?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 1999)

The Honourable Member refers to the draft guidelines on vertical restraints that
published, together with a draft block exemption regulation, on 24 September 1999 (1).

the Commission

The Commission considers that the new proposed policy will considerably simplify the rules applicable to
vertical restraints and reduce the regulatory burden, as it will enable companies which lack market power
(and most companies lack market power) to benefit from a safe harbour within which it will be no longer
necessary for them to assess the validity of their agreements under the Community competition rules. In
accordance with this new approach, the proposed block exemption regulation covers up to a market share
threshold set at 30 % all vertical restraints concerning both intermediate and final goods, as well as
services, except for a limited number of hardcore restraints and conditions. This removes certain major
shortcomings in the three existing block exemption regulations concerning exclusive distribution, exclusive
purchasing and franchising agreements, which have been widely criticised in recent years for being too
narrow in scope, over formalistic in their approach and for imposing on industry a strait-jacket
incompatible with the evolution of production and distribution methods. The simplification brought
about by the new proposed policy will in particular benefit small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs),
which will be largely covered by the new regulation.