WRITTEN QUESTION E-2075/99 by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Liberalisation in the context of the WTO negotiations.
Date: 1999-11-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: GATT, Uruguay Round, World Trade Organisation, beef, consumer, economic consequence, farming sector, food safety, liberalisation of the market, precautionary principle, standard of living

20.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 170 E/143

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1999)

In the framework of the Community rules on competition and, in particular, Council Regulation (EC)
1310/97 of 30 June 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between
undertakings (1) (Merger Regulation), the Commission examines mergers and acquisitions where certain
minimum turnover thresholds are achieved by the companies concerned (concentrations having Commun-
ity dimension). The parties to such concentrations have to notify the project to the Commission and are as
a rule not allowed to implement it before the receipt of a clearance decision. If a concentration threatens
competition in a distinct market within a Member State the Commission, according to Article 9 of the
Merger Regulation, has the possibility to refer the examination of such a concentration to the Member
State, provided it receives a reasoned request for referral from the authorities.

On 5 October 1999, the Commission received a notification of the proposed merger between Carrefour
and Promodes. The operation will create the largest European player in the food retail sector. The main
effects of the merger will be in countries where the parties(cid:146) businesses overlap: Spain, France, Italy and
Portugal. In order to assess the case, the Commission looks carefully at the regional and local aspects of
distribution. At the present stage the operation is under examination and a market investigation has been
launched.

If the Commission after its market investigation comes to the conclusion that a concentration would create
or strengthen a dominant position impeding effective competition (monopoly or joint dominant position
of several undertakings), it will declare the proposed deal incompatible with the common market unless
the parties propose to adapt their initial project in order to make it compatible.

So far, the Commission has examined around two dozen cases in the food retail sector in various
European economic area (EEA) Member States. In one case, the proposed concentration between Kesko
and Tuko (M. 784;1996), both Finnish companies active in the sale of daily consumer goods in Finland,
the Commission concluded that the operation would create a monopolistic supply structure in large parts
of the Finnish market, with combined market shares of 50 % on a national level. The concentration was
therefore declared incompatible with the common market. In another case, Tesco/ABF (M. 914; 1997),
concerning the food retail sector in Ireland and Northern Ireland, the Commission cleared the case taking
note of undertakings offered by the parties to the Irish government with regard to the supply-side. In the
case Rewe/Meinl (M.1221;1998), concerning the Austrian food retail sector, the Commission cleared the
concentration subject to stringent conditions,
limiting the proposed deal to one third of the target(cid:146)s
turnover and to certain regions of Austria. Two other cases, Promodes/Casino (the parties later abandoned
the project) (M.991;1997) and Promodes/S21/Gruppo GS (M. 1086;1998) were partially referred to the
Member States concerned, and consequently dealt with by the French and Italian competition authorities.

At this preliminary stage of its review of the Carrefour/Promodes merger, the Commission is not in a
position to express any view of the possible outcome of its investigations.

(1) OJ L 180, 9.7.1997.

(2000/C 170 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2075/99

by Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Liberalisation in the context of the WTO negotiations

The WTO Millennium Round is scheduled to include negotiations on further liberalisation in the
agricultural sector. Further liberalisation is appropriate, however, only if it helps to increase the prosperity
of farmers and consumers.

C 170 E/144

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2000

Has there already been an official evaluation by the WTO and/or the Commission of the impact that
1.
the Agreement on Agriculture reached during the GATT Uruguay Round has had on prices and incomes in
the EU, the USA and the rest of the world (evaluations up to and including 1999)?

How does the Commission evaluate the impacts of the GATT Uruguay Round? I would appreciate an
2.
evaluation not only of the two exceptional years 1995 and 1996 but for the whole period from 1995 until
1999. I would similarly appreciate it if the assessment focused predominantly on quantities and price
trends in the markets rather than simply on the development of world trade in value terms.

3.

4.

Has liberalisation actually produced benefits for the consumer?

Have food prices fallen, and to what extent?

Has food safety and quality improved as a result of the opening up of markets and the SPS

5.
agreement?

6. What view should be taken in this context of the WTO panel that monitors the prohibition of
imports of beef produced with the aid of growth hormones?

7. What is the relationship between the expansion of world trade and the general trend in incomes in
the EU and other WTO member countries, and how is any rise in incomes distributed among the
population?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2000/C 170 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2077/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Implementation in Greece of Directive 89/48

(12 November 1999)

In its judgment of 23 March 1995 (Case C 365/93), the Court of Justice ruled that Greece had failed to
implement Community Directive 89/48 (1) on a general system for the recognition of higher-education
diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years(cid:146) duration.
Since complaints from members of the public have shown that DIKATSA, the Greek public organisation
responsible for the recognition of such diplomas, has failed to comply with the Directive in question, will
the Commission say whether Greece is implementing the ruling of the Court of Justice? If not, what
measures will the Commission take to bring Greek legislation into line with Community law?

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 1999)

As a result of Greece(cid:146)s failure to comply with the Court of Justice judgment of 23 March 1995, the
Commission initiated new infringement proceedings against Greece on 10 December 1997, accompanied
by a request for a periodic penalty payment, for its failure to transpose Council Directive 89/0048/EEC of
21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on
completion of professional education and training of at least three years(cid:146) duration. The hearing at the
Court of Justice took place on 20 October 1999.