WRITTEN QUESTION E-1689/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Swedish state aid to Bengtfors in Sweden.
Date: 2000-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, West Sweden, application of EU law, control of State aid, motor vehicle industry, transfer of businesses

C 72 E/100

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1683/00

by Per Stenmarck (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Vehicle inspection monopoly on Swedish market

(29 May 2000)

AB Svensk bilprovning (the Swedish Motor-Vehicle Inspection Company) has a monopoly on vehicle
testing in Sweden. As this monopoly is unable to keep pace with its commitments, both private and
commercial vehicles are banned from the roads because they cannot be inspected within the deadlines.
There is a waiting period of up to 79 days and road haulage firms lay off their workers. The solution
would be competition but the Swedish Parliament has legislated against that.

Does the Commission consider that the Swedish monopoly is consistent with EU law?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The Honourable Member asks the Commission whether the monopoly the Swedish State has granted to
AB Svensk Belprovning (hereinafter ASB) in the roadworthiness control of motor vehicles is compatible
with Community law.

The Commission received a complaint concerning an alleged abuse of
the monopoly of ASB and
conducted a preliminary analysis of the information brought to its attention. It replied to the complainant,
by letters of 15 June 1999 and of 21 February 2000, that it did not intend to take any further action in
this matter unless the complainant provided further elements in support of the allegations. Since the latter
letter, no such further elements were submitted.

According to the information at hand (the State auditors(cid:146) [Riksdagens revisorer] report 1999/2000:6),
the Swedish government decided, back in 1994, that the monopoly should end, but later the same year
postponed the implementation of this decision indefinitely. It is also worth noting that in 1998 the
Swedish competition authority recommended the government either abolish the exclusivity of ASB in
obligatory vehicle testing or limit its activity to this testing and thus not to allow it to compete in other
related activities to avoid any potential conflicts of interest. It moreover appears that in 1998 ASB set itself
the target to reduce waiting times.

The existence of the exclusive right for obligatory motor vehicle control could be put into question only if
ASB could be shown to abuse its dominant position contrary to the Community competition rules.
The information presented did not suffice to consider that such abuse takes place. In addition, there was
no sufficient indication in the information received of at least potentially appreciable effects on trade
between Member States. On the basis of these elements, the Commission did not pursue the case.

As the existence of a monopoly is not illegal as such, the Commission could consider reviewing this
position only if it were presented with clear indications of an abuse of the dominant position by ASB and
of at least potentially appreciable effects on trade between Member States.

(2001/C 72 E/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1689/00

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Swedish state aid to Bengtfors in Sweden

Has the Commission approved Swedish state aid of SEK 60 million to boost employment in Bengtfors
following the relocation of the Lear Corporation?

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/101

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

In 1999 the company Lear Corporation decided to leave the town of Bengtsfors in the region of Dalsland
in Sweden. As the company was an important employer in the region, the Swedish government in a press
release dated 29 March 1999 offered to grant an employment aid of up to SEK 60 million (about € 7,2
million). The aid was to be granted under ordinance 1998:996 on employment grants, which was
approved by the Commission on 18 June 1997 (1).

The potential recipient company, Nisch Produkter, produces special motor vehicles for passenger transport.
Under Section 2.2 of the Community framework for state aid in the motor vehicle sector (2), all aid granted
under an approved aid scheme has to be notified separately, if the nominal amount of the investment
project (total cost of the project) is more than € 50 million or if the total gross aid granted for the project
is more than € 5 million. Consequently, if Nisch Produkter belongs to the motor vehicle sector, an aid of
about € 7,2 million has to be notified to the Commission.

The Swedish authorities have informed the Commission that as of 5 June 2000 the company has not
requested any aid. They expect the eventual request to concern an amount, which is lower than the
amount mentioned in the press release. If the thresholds mentioned above are still exceeded, and if it is
concluded that the recipient company belongs to the motor vehicle sector, the aid will have to be notified
to the Commission.

(1) State aid No E 23/95, letter to the Member State SG(97) D/4397.
(2) OJ C 279, 15.9.1997.

(2001/C 72 E/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1691/00

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Commission(cid:146)s examination of ban on Swedish professional boxing

Has the Commission examined the question of the ban on professional boxing in Sweden? Is it a breach of
the internal market rules on freedom of movement?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2000)

The Commission would like to inform the honourable Member that it has had occasion to study the
compatibility of
the freedom of
the ban on professional boxing in Sweden with the principle of
establishment enshrined in Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the EC Treaty, which is a fundamental freedom
for ensuring free movement within the internal market.

In accordance with this principle, in fact, nationals of the Member States can pursue professional activities
as self-employed persons under the conditions laid down for its own nationals by the law of the country
where establishment is effected.

In this connection, it is important to stress that in the absence of specific Community rules governing a
specific activity each Member State is free to organise the pursuit of a professional activity in its territory
(see, in particular, the Court of Justice judgment of 2 July 1984, Case 107/83, Ordre des Avocats au
Barreau de Paris versus Klopp (1984)ECR2971).

According to the information available to the Commission, professional boxing in Sweden is not allowed
by virtue of a law of 1 January 1970. This ban applies generally, both to Swedish nationals and to
nationals of other Member States. A ban of this kind cannot therefore be regarded as contrary to the
principle of the freedom of establishment.