WRITTEN QUESTION E-1349/00 by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission. Compulsory metrication of British weights and measures (loose goods).
Date: 2000-05-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, United Kingdom, competence of the Member States, derogation from EU law, infringement of EU law, marketing standard, penalty, repeal, weights and measures

C 46 E/174

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2000)

The Honourable Member(cid:146)s questions relate to a competition investigation which continues.

As regards parliamentary questions on pending cases, the Commission would refer the Honourable
Member to the letter of the former member responsible for Competition dated 28 January 1999 to the
former Chairman of the Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy. In
his letter, the responsible member explained that only limited, general and non-confidential information
can be provided in relation to pending cases.

As to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s questions, the Commission would like to reply as follows:

1. Yes, the Commission has replied to the International automobile federation (IAF) public letter of

1 February 2000.

2. The member responsible for Competition made a public statement

immediately following the
publication of the IAF(cid:146)s letter. In this statement the responsible member noted that the major part of
the criticism of the Commission(cid:146)s behaviour was based on events which happened already in December
1997 and which led to an order of the Court of first instance on 6 December 1999 after IAF had
withdrawn a claim against the Commission for damages.

He also said that, as already in the past, the IAF was criticising the behaviour of an individual
competition official. Such criticisms had previously turned out
to be totally unfounded. The
responsible member stated that the new criticism had already been subject of an internal investigation
which concluded that it was equally unjustified.

3. As explained in point 2 above, the Commission did reply to the IAF(cid:146)s public letter of 1 February

2000.

4.

In this case, the Commission took all the necessary measures to ensure transparency and proper
casehandling. In particular, the Commission informed the public of all important developments in the
case by a notice of 27 November 1997 summarising the notified agreements, by a press release of
29 June 1999 summarising its objections and by the spokesman(cid:146)s statement of 5 May 2000 on the
postponement of the oral hearing and the settlement discussions with the IAF.

(2001/C 46 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1349/00

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Compulsory metrication of British weights and measures (loose goods)

On 1 January 2000, the UK government introduced legislation purporting to make it illegal for British
traders to sell to British customers in traditional, imperial, weights and measures, such as pounds, ounces,
feet, inches, pints and gallons.

While it appears that the British Government specifically allowed British traders to sell in British weights
and measures under the Weights and Measures Act 1985, the government now insists that it must obey
the European Union by implementing a 1989 directive that all sales in the United Kingdom should be
carried out in metric units.

Recent public opinion surveys in Britain have shown opposition to compulsory metrication, with over
90 % of British customers strongly opposing the purchase of loose items in kilograms, metres etc.

The European Union frequently boasts that it is in favour of (cid:145)cultural diversity(cid:146) in its publications.

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/175

There is a huge resistance campaign in Britain to these measures with tens of thousands of traders openly
defying the government(cid:146)s metrication regulations. The reason for the resistance is that British people see
no good reason to give up their traditional weights and measures which have many advantages over the
metric system.

The Commission is asked:

1. What are the procedures for reversing the 1989 directive, or any other directives dealing with
compulsory metrication, in the light of the manifest wish of the majority of people not to go metric?

2. Does the European Union in fact insist that the British Government should completely metrify the
sales of loose goods, or does the British Government have any option, according to the European
Union, to delay the implementation of these measures?

3. Does the European Union approve of criminal penalties for those British traders selling in British,

imperial measures, in order to achieve compulsory metrication?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2000)

1.
Amendment of Council Directive 89/617/EEC of 27 November 1989 amending Directive 80/181/
EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement (1) would
require a new directive.

The Commission has received no representations from the British Government proposing any

2.
reversal of metrication policy.

The enforcement mechanisms to ensure implementation of the United Kingdom legislation putting

3.
the Directive into effect are of course a matter for the British authorities.

(1) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989.

(2001/C 46 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1353/00

by Jorge HernÆndez Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Delay by the EU in reaching a decision on an increase of capital for the Santana Motor company

The Spanish car manufacturer Santana Motor registered a loss of ESP 2 986 million in 1999, in excess of
all forecasts, whether those of the Andalusian regional government or those of the company(cid:146)s own
strategic plan.

This company is owned by the Andalusian Development Institute (Instituto de Fomento de Andaluc(cid:237)a),
which is an organ of the Andalusian regional government. The Institute believes that these losses have
arisen owing to the appreciation of the yen and to the delay by the EU in reaching a decision on an
increase of capital for the company and on its requests for aid.

Can the Commission state whether the Institute(cid:146)s complaint as regards the Union in this respect is in fact
justifiable, and explain to what extent it believes the Union can be considered responsible for the prejudice
for which it is being blamed by the owners of Santana Motor?