WRITTEN QUESTION P-1191/00 by Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The beer tie.
Date: 2000-04-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, catering industry, exclusive distribution agreement, jurisdiction

C 53 E/96

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

amending the Annex to Council Directive 75/318/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to analytical, pharmacotoxicological and clinical standards and protocols in respect of the
testing of medicinal products (2) has specified in detail the practical application of this provision and may
be of particular help for the authorisation of well established herbal medicinal products.

is up to regulatory authorities in Member States to apply the above principles of Community
It
pharmaceutical legislation and to take concrete decisions on authorisations and restrictions (e.g. medical
prescription) for specific herbal products. The Commission is not considering a change to that approach.

The practical application of the above rules falls primarily in the competence of Member States. The
attention of the Honourable Member is, however, drawn to the activities of the working party on herbal
medicinal products at the European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products (EMEA) in London,
which has been created with the aim of fostering gradual harmonisation of the safety and efficacy
evaluation of herbal medicinal products in the Community. Reports on the activities of this working
group can be accessed through the EMEA(cid:146)s website:
http://www.eudra.org/emea.html.

(1) OJ 22, 9.2.1965.
(2) OJ L 243, 15.9.1999.

(2001/C 53 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1191/00

by Timothy Kirkhope (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2000)

Subject:

(cid:145)The beer tie(cid:146)

Nearly 700 cases have been brought against the Inntrepreneur Pub Company regarding the validity of the
obligations imposed upon their tenants of public houses to buy beer from a supplier nominated by them
(cid:145)(the beer tie)(cid:146). Many tenants believe that this beer tie infringes the EC rule of competition under Article 81
(ex Article 85) of the EC Treaty of Rome.

One case, Crehan v Courage, was referred to the European Court of Justice by the Court of Appeal in the
United Kingdom but two others have been refused leave to appeal by the House of Lords.

Can the Commission confirm whether there are provisions in Article 234 (ex Article 177) of the EC Treaty
of Rome whereby a question that is raised before a national court against whose decision there is no
judicial remedy under national law can be brought before the European Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2000)

The Commission must point out at the outset that Article 234 (ex Article 177) of the EC Treaty confers
jurisdiction on the Court of justice to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of Community law and
on the validity of acts of the institutions of the Community. The second subparagraph of Article 234
makes it clear that only the courts or tribunals of a Member State may request the Court of justice to give
such rulings. Thus, the parties to the domestic proceedings may not themselves address questions to the
Court of justice, as the question submitted by the Honourable Member would seem to imply, but must
convince the domestic court of the need to refer a question to the Court of justice. When the domestic
court is a court of last resort, against whose decision there is no remedy, that court must, according to
Article 234 third subparagraph, bring the matter before the Court of justice.

It follows from the scheme and wording of Article 234 that only a domestic court which is still seised of a
dispute can refer a question to the Court of justice. When the domestic court is no longer seised of a
dispute, such as when the case settles or when a court of last resort has given a final ruling, the Court of
justice cannot assume competence to give a ruling on the matter and the parties cannot refer a question
to it.

20.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 53 E/97

Under English law, no appeal can be made to the House of Lords, the highest court in the United
Kingdom, as of right. According to Section 1 of the Administration of Justice (Appeals) Act 1934 (1) an
appeal can be made to the House of Lords only if leave of the Court of Appeal or leave of the House of
Lords is obtained first. In practice, therefore, the situation may occur where both the Court of Appeal and
the House of Lords refuse leave to appeal to the House of Lords. The judgment of the Court of Appeal
against which leave was sought to appeal thus becomes final and no other court can be seised of that
dispute between the parties. As the Honourable Member may be aware, a similar situation prevails in
Finland (2).

The Commission has received a number of complaints which allege in effect that Section 1 of the
Administration of
Justice (Appeals) Act 1934 is contrary to Article 234 of the Treaty. All of the
complaints to date concern cases dealing with the beer tie. They are currently under investigation.

(1) 24 & 25 Geo 5 c 40.
(2) Sixteenth Annual Report on monitoring the application of Community law, 1998, submitted by the Commission on

9 July 1999 (OJ C 354, 7.12.1999, pp 1 to 185).

(2001/C 53 E/127)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1193/00

by Christel Fiebiger (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Subject: Distortion of competition caused by differences in the price of agricultural diesel

In the EU the price of diesel fuel used to power agricultural vehicles varies greatly. In France, for example,
it is € 0,40, in the Netherlands € 0,35 and in Denmark € 0,31, whilst farmers in Germany have had to
pay € 0,61 since 1 January 2000.

Does the Commission see any opportunity for creating a level playing field in the area of Community
agriculture? How could distortions of competition in this area be removed?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2000)

The prices of diesel used as fuel in agriculture for vehicles such as tractors and stationary machinery, vary
considerably from one Member State to another. Fuel prices differ, to a certain extent, for fiscal reasons
and in particular the way each Member State applies the existing fiscal provisions included in the
Community legislation.

In fact, Community legislation, in particular Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (1), provides, under its Article 8(2f), the
possibility for Member States to apply total or partial exemptions or reductions in the rate of duty to
mineral oils to be used, under fiscal control, exclusively in agricultural and horticultural works, in forestry
and inland fisheries. Therefore, Member States are entitled not to apply the full minimum rate of excise
duty on diesel used as propellant, which is fixed at € 245 per 1 000 litres (Article 5 (1) of Council
Directive 92/82/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duties on mineral
oils (1)), but to apply a rate ranging between € 0 and € 245.

The Commission presented in March 1997 a proposal for a Council directive restructuring the Community
framework for the taxation of energy products (2), the main thrust of which was the need to modernise the
Community system for the taxation of mineral oils, to extend its scope to all energy products as well as to
allow the Community to reap the full benefit of the single market and meet its environmental objectives.