WRITTEN QUESTION E-0690/00 by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission. Establishment of a safe-driving centre in the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
Date: 2000-03-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Luxembourg, driving instruction, infringement of EU law, monopoly, right of establishment

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/135

Reply

(18 May 2000)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, in accordance with Article 48 (former Article N)
of the Treaty on European Union, it is for the participants in the Intergovernmental Conference, that is to
say the representatives of the Governments of the Member States, to adopt by common accord the
amendments to be made to the those Treaties. In the case of institutional amendments in the monetary
area, the Council of the European Central Bank is also consulted.

(2000/C 374 E/160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0690/00

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Establishment of a safe-driving centre in the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

The principle of freedom of establishment, sanctioned in Article 43 of the EC Treaty, which bans all
restrictions on the freedom of a citizen of one Member States to set up business in the territory of another,
is one of the cornerstones of the European Union.

On the basis of this right there can be no restrictions on the opening of agencies, branches or subsidiaries
by citizens of one Member State in the territory of another Member State. Consequently, they can set up
and manage businesses and companies under the conditions laid down by the legislation of the country of
establishment for its own citizens.

Is Luxembourg entitled to deny the principle of freedom of establishment to a Union citizen of non-
Luxembourg nationality, on the basis that the business which he wants to set up would allegedly not be
economically viable? Is the Commission aware that this has happened to an Italian national who, on the
basis of the Ministry of Transport(cid:146)s regulation of 19 June 1995, wanted to set up a safe-driving centre in
the Grand Duchy and was refused permission on the grounds that (cid:145)on the basis of economic assessments a
single centre amply caters for the country(cid:146)s needs(cid:146)?

Does this discretionary refusal not, in effect, distort the rules of free competition and the market, to the
detriment of Luxembourg citizens(cid:146) freedom of choice?

Is the Commission also aware that the Luxembourg Ministry of Transport issued a second regulation on
8 May 1999, revising the earlier regulation of 19 June 1995, also dealing with the establishment of a safe-
driving centre on Luxembourg territory, but laying down new technical criteria, which in effect maintain a
monopoly for the only existing safe-driving centre on Luxembourg territory, belonging to Goodyear and
situated at Colmar-Berg?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2000)

As the Honourable Member points out, the principle of freedom of establishment, sanctioned by Article 43
(ex Article 52) of the EC Treaty, may be exercised by natural or legal persons. In the case of legal persons,
therefore, it is permitted to open agencies, branches or subsidiaries in Member States other than that in
which the principal place of business is based.

However, the Commission would like to clarify that restrictions to exercising this freedom may never-
theless be recognised as being compatible with the principle of Article 43 of the EC Treaty if they are
justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest and if they are not disproportionate to the
objective being pursued. Such reasons may not include interests of an economic nature.

The specific situation mentioned by the Honourable Member has been brought to the Commission(cid:146)s
attention and, according to the information it has been given, it seems that the decision taken by the
Luxembourg authorities to deny permission for economic reasons is not compatible with the principle
sanctioned by Article 43 of the EC Treaty. This decision, based on a regulation which was no longer in

C 374 E/136

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.12.2000

force in Luxembourg at the time the Commission received its information, is not grounds for an action for
failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty but may be appealed by the
interested party at national level.

The Commission has also been informed that the Ministry of Transport(cid:146)s regulation of 19 June 1995 was
repealed and replaced by a regulation of 8 May 1999. Upon examination it contains detailed criteria for
accrediting structures required for training and also training organisation procedures. In this regard, the
Commission does not have any information which demonstrates and proves that these criteria in effect
maintain a monopoly for the Colmar-Berg centre.

(2000/C 374 E/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0694/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Nuclear Safety, the Convention on Nuclear Safety and Sellafield

The Convention on Nuclear Safety came into force in October 1996. Could the Commission confirm
which Member States have signed up, and if the United Kingdom is amongst the signatories?

The Nuclear Safety Review (i.e. a peer review process) provided for in the Convention was due in April
1999. Could the Commission provide an update on the outcome of the review, and comment on any
subsequent related developments?

Considering the strict approach taken by the Commission over the safety of nuclear plants in applicant
countries, would the Commission outline its position on the Sellafield nuclear plant in the UK, bearing in
mind recent official criticism (1) of the plant, and outline what subsequent action the Commission feels
should be taken at all levels of authority?

(1) Contained in a report by the British Nuclear Installations Inspectorate published on Friday, February 18, 2000.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2000)

All Member States and the European atomic energy Community are parties to the 1994 Convention on
nuclear safety (1). The first review meeting under the Convention took place on 12-23 April 1999 in
Vienna. The European atomic energy Community was not yet contracting party at that date and therefore
it did not take part in the meeting. The United Kingdom submitted its national report and took part in the
meeting. The International atomic energy agency (IAEA) that provides the secretariat for the meetings of
the contracting parties to the Convention made available on internet the summary report of the meeting
(http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/glance/legal/revmtg0199.html).

The Convention applies to the safety of land based civil nuclear power plants and therefore the Sellafield
plant referred to is not within the scope of the Convention. It is, however, to be noted that one of the
main requirements under the Convention is set out in its Article 8, regulatory body, as follows: (cid:145)1. Each
Contracting Party shall establish or designate a regulatory body entrusted with the implementation of the
legislative and regulatory framework ((cid:133)), and provided with adequate authority, competence and financial
and human resources to fulfil
its assigned responsibilities. 2. Each Contracting Party shall take the
appropriate steps to ensure an effective separation between the functions of the regulatory body and
those of any other body or organisation concerned with the promotion of utilisation of nuclear energy(cid:146). In
general, and indeed in the United Kingdom, the competence of the regulatory body is not limited to
nuclear installations as defined by the Convention.