WRITTEN QUESTION E-1342/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. IAF and the Directorate-General for Competition.
Date: 2000-05-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: complaint to the Commission, free movement of programmes, sporting event, sports body, transparency in decision-making

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/173

However, the Commission is aware of the specific problems mentioned by the Honourable Member and
will
the third
Community support framework which are expected to start in June 2000.

take them into account during the negotiations of

the operational programmes of

(1) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.
(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 46 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1337/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(4 May 2000)

Subject: Merger of Commercial Intertech Corporation with Parker Hannifin Corporation

Is the Commission aware of the merger between Commercial Intertech Corporation and Parker Hannifin
Corporation and its implications for European competitivity? Will the Commission investigate whether it is
appropriate for the merger to take place in the light of European competition policy? Will it undertake to
meet with representatives of the workforce to hear their views?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

The Commission has not been informed of the merger, which is the subject of the questions raised by the
Honourable Member.

With regard to the Commission meeting with representatives of the workforce of undertakings concerned
by a notified merger, in general the Commission is willing to meet with such representatives to hear their
views on the competition aspects of the operation. Furthermore, Article 18.4 of the Merger Regulation,
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989, on the control of concentrations between
undertakings (1) provides for the entitlement of the recognized representatives of employees to be heard
upon application, in specific instances, most notably in the case of in-depth investigations.

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.

(2001/C 46 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1342/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: IAF and the Directorate-General for Competition

(4 May 2000)

Last February, Members of
the European Parliament received a dossier from the IAF (International
Automobile Federation) concerning the (cid:129) not altogether transparent (cid:129) links between the Directorate-
General for Competition and the Federation. Enclosed with the dossier was a copy of a letter sent on
1 February 2000 to the Commissioner responsible, formally asking him to state his position on four
points.

In the interests of improving transparency in the relations between certain much-discussed departments
and their contacts in the relevant sector, and ensuring public accountability, would the Commission
answer the following questions:

1. Did the Commission reply to the IAF(cid:146)s requests?

2.

3.

If so, what was the substance of the Commission(cid:146)s replies?

If not, why were the complaints that had been made not followed up?

4. When will the Commission take the necessary decisions to ensure transparency and honesty, which

were called for on all sides when the last Commission was turned out of office?

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.