WRITTEN QUESTION E-1683/00 by Per Stenmarck (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Vehicle inspection monopoly on Swedish market.
Date: 2000-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, application of EU law, monopoly, roadworthiness tests

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?