WRITTEN QUESTION E-0432/00 by Giorgos Katiforis (PSE) to the Commission. Commission dispute with the International Automobile Federation.
Date: 2000-02-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, administrative sanction, competition law, complaint to the Commission, confidentiality, legal expenses, operation of the Institutions, professional sport, sports body

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/157

(2000/C 330 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0432/00

by Giorgos Katiforis (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Commission dispute with the International Automobile Federation

Can the Commission explain why it took until the end of June 1999 to issue its statement of objections
against the International Automobile Federation (FIA) when the FIA voluntarily notified its rules and
statutes to the Commission in July 1994, and can it state what technical reports were commissioned by the
Competition Department in support of its objections?

Can the Commission explain why it saw a need to break its own rules of confidentiality and brief the press
illegally regarding the FIA case, and, after its actions were condemned by the Court of First Instance, can it
state what disciplinary action was taken against those who authorised this illegal action?

Can the Commission inform the House of the total costs involved in defending its case against the FIA in
the Court of First Instance, including (a) the costs awarded against it, and (b) the man hours expended by
the legal services in defending the case?

Can the Commission guarantee that if its statement of objections against the FIA is adopted, this will not
lead to the current practice of free-to-air broadcasting of Formula One for European citizens being eroded
or scrapped?

Can the Commission confirm that
the report on sport by Commissioner Reding, adopted by the
Commission in December 1999 and submitted to the Helsinki European Summit, is the most up-to-date
and definitive statement by the Commission on the issue of sports governance and the application of
internal market rules, and if so could the Commission confirm that all its departments would be expected
to pay due regard of its contents when acting on behalf of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2000)

The Honourable Member(cid:146)s question relates to a pending competition investigation. As regards parliament-
ary questions on pending cases, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the letter of the
then competition Commissioner dated 28th January 1999 to the then Chairman of the Parliament
committee on Economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy which explained that only limited,
general and non-confidential information can be provided in relation to pending cases.

As regards the delays involved in these cases, the Commission would also like to refer the Honourable
Member to the above mentioned letter, in which the Commission stated that the International automobile
federation (FIA) itself extended the scope of the case by modifying its rules and by filing a new notification
concerning Formula One in September 1997. The same letter also explained that, after the date of the
initial notification, the Commission received a number of complaints against the FIA.

The Competition Directorate general did not commission any technical reports in the FIA(cid:141)related cases.
The necessary information was provided by the parties involved or third parties either on their own
initiative or upon the Commission(cid:146)s request.

The issue of the leak to the press was settled by the Commission(cid:146)s public apology on 26 July 1999 (press
release IP/99/564) and the order of the Court of first instance (CFI) dated 6 December 1999 (Case T-85/
98). The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to this order. Due to the fact that no
professional fault had been established, this incident did not warrant any disciplinary action.

C 330 E/158

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

In the above mentioned Order, the CFI fixed the total costs payable by the Commission at € 40 000 whereas
the FIA had requested an amount of € 400 000. The Commission cannot give any relevant information on
the man hours spent by its legal services in defending the case before the CFI which was settled at an early
stage. The Commission staff and budgetary regulations do not provide for a method for such calculations.
Moreover, the Court of justice held (Case C-409/96T/DEP) that the work undertaken by Commission
officials who act as agents for the Commission is part of their duties as officials and that no portion
thereof can be specifically attributed to the representation and defence in a particular case.

As regards the fourth question, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the statement
of objections was already adopted by the Commission on 29 June 1999. The Commission expects that any
final action in the present case will have the effect of stimulating competition in the relevant broadcasting
market.

the Commission confirms that

Finally,
its report on sport of December 1999 mentioned by the
Honourable Member is the most current Commission statement on its overall policy in sport related
issues and that all departments in the Commission are taking due regard of its contents in their respective
actions.

(2000/C 330 E/179)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0434/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Housing safety standards

(23 February 2000)

With reference to Written Question E-2480/99 and the Commission reply (1), and while questioning in
passing the fact that the Commission did not consider it necessary to introduce legislation laying down
safety standards for housing, despite the many recent incidents that have alerted us to this issue, can the
Commission explain why a directive adopted twelve years ago (Council Directive 89/106/EEC of
21 December 1988) (2) has not yet been transposed into the individual Member States(cid:146) domestic law?

Does the Commission agree that it is possible that a directive dating back so far no longer corresponds to
current safety standards for housing, and requires updating?

So, while we urgently request that a directive be drawn up on housing safety standards, could the
Commission also take action to speed up the process of drawing up technical specifications, which
supposedly is being carried out by the standards organisations, with a view to laying down harmonised
and, as far as possible, definitive standards?

Finally, could the Commission set out the criteria for the implementation of the reference directive, once it
has been updated or transposed into law?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 52.
(2) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 12.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

The Commission shares the Honourable Members(cid:146) concerns regarding housing safety standards in the
Community.

For several years the Commission has made a considerable effort to bring about harmonisation of the
different types and methods of design and construction both in the building industry and in public works,
in so far as its mandate and means have allowed. These efforts resulted both in the adoption of Council
Directive 89/106/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
Member States relating to construction products and in the preparation of Eurocodes. The Commission
would also like to point out that all Member States have transposed this Directive, the latest being Belgium
in 1998.