WRITTEN QUESTION E-2456/99 by Sergio Berlato (UEN) and Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission. New Holland ‐ Case.
Date: 1999-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, agricultural machinery, competition law, competition policy, demerger, dominant position, harvester, intellectual property, merger control, multinational enterprise, trust

C 225 E/136

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

Does it not consider that the selection of a single body for each product might be to the serious
3.
detriment of producers of PDO and PGI products, who are obliged to accept financial clauses and services
with no other alternative and with no specific rules on the fixing of prices and the definition of
certification procedures, which are currently at the total discretion of the sole approved private firm?

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

In the light of its replies to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s written questions P-1845/99 (1) and P-2334/99 (2),
the Commission confirms that Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of
geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (3) stipulates
that (cid:145)an inspection structure may comprise one or more designated inspection authorities and/or private
bodies approved for that purpose by the Member State(cid:146).

The Member State in which the geographical area covered by the protected designation of origin (PDO) or
the protected geographical indication (PGI) is situated has the right to determine the inspection structures(cid:146)
composition and number.

Article 10(4) of the Regulation stipulates that, if an inspection authority and/or private body establish that
an agricultural product bearing a protected name of origin in that Member State does not meet the criteria
of the specification, they must take the steps necessary to ensure compliance with the Regulation and
inform the Member State of the measures taken in carrying out their inspections.

In any case, producers must have recourse to the inspection structure provided for in the specification.

Article 10 stipulates
standard EN 45011 (general criteria for certification bodies (cid:129) amended on 18 February 1998).

that private inspection bodies must

the requirements

fulfil

laid down in

Member States are responsible for verifying that the inspection bodies chosen fully meet the requirements
laid down by that standard.

See page 27.
See page 105.

(1)
(2)
(3) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.

(2000/C 225 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2456/99

by Sergio Berlato (UEN) and Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: New Holland (cid:129) Case

The Antitrust Committee chaired by Commissioner Mario Monti has approved the acquisition of the
American group Case, market leader in the production of agricultural machinery, by the Fiat (cid:129) New
Holland group.

The Commission, recognizing that the new group(cid:146)s dominant position would be enhanced, has allegedly
made the approval conditional on the group divesting itself of several product lines and plants situated in
the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria and Italy.

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/137

The plant in Breganze is the only one in Italy to manufacture combine harvesters and in the past its
market performance has been characterised by high quality and reliability at competitive prices; but as a
result of restructuring by the Fiat (cid:129) New Holland multinational, despite the plant(cid:146)s profitability and its new
premises, 1 000 jobs have been shed there over the past ten years.

Can the Commission say whether:

(cid:129) the disinvestment required by the Antitrust Committee as an indispensable condition should be

interpreted as the sale of the plants to competitors?

(cid:129) the competition has already been identified and whether the Commission has the duty or power to

control future agreements?

(cid:129) the sale of the firms to rival concerns includes the transfer of their wealth and special features in terms

of intellectual property, personnel, know-how and supply contracts?

(cid:129) moreover, specific machines known as maize harvesting bars were designed, researched and manu-
factured entirely in the Italian factory in Breganze; they are now being manufactured in Poland in a
factory purchased by New Holland. Does the Commission not believe that the special production
features of these machines, not to mention the combine harvesters, of which New Holland in
Breganze is the sole Italian manufacturer, should be safeguarded?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2000)

If the Commission in its assessment of a notified merger has serious doubts as to its compatibility with the
common market, the companies can submit undertakings in order to eliminate the identified competition
concerns. These undertakings can enable the Commission to declare the concentration compatible with the
common market, (Articles 6(1) b, 6(2) and 8(2) of Council Regulation no 4064/89 of 21 December 1989
on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1), the merger Regulation).

In cases where the Commission clears the merger, subject to modifications, the Commission appoints,
upon the parties(cid:146) suggestion, an independent trustee. The role of the trustee includes ensuring that the
divestment assets are maintained pursuant to good business practice until the sale of the divestment assets
and the taking effect of the agreements and that the divestments will effectively take place within specific
deadlines.

In the merger case New Holland/Case, New Holland proposed in order to obtain the Commission(cid:146)s
clearance within six weeks, undertakings including the divestment of various ranges and brands of tractors,
combine harvesters, Case large square balers and backhoe loaders. This implies the assignment of
intellectual property rights, of assets and personnel used or engaged in the manufacture and/or research
and development of the divested product as well as of supply contracts. Moreover, the undertakings
contain an opening up of Case and/or New Holland(cid:146)s dealer networks in the European Economic Area for
all of the products divested.

In particular regarding combine harvesters, New Holland proposed to divest the Laverda non-hillside
harvesters to a third party. This divestment includes the assignment of all intellectual property rights and
know-how including the rights to the Laverda brand name in and to New Holland(cid:146)s non-hillside Laverda
combines and the assignment of all assets of the Laverda production plant at Breganze (Italy) and of
personnel employed at the plant, as well as of supply contracts.

According to the decision of the Commission, New Holland is obliged to ensure that the divestments
including the Laverda non-hillside harvesters, are maintained according to good business practices at their
current level until they are sold to a third party.

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, whole text republished in OJ L 257, 21.9.1990.