WRITTEN QUESTION E-2093/00 by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (TDI) to the Commission. Alleged fraud at the Stockholm Information Office involving 648.
Date: 2000-06-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European official, dismissal, fraud against the EU, sanction (EU), servant (EU)

C 81 E/142

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.3.2001

Second, it should be remembered that the success of companies such as Volvo and Scania has been due
largely to the competition between them. This explains, to a large degree, why they have become
successful international companies with more than 80 % of their sales outside the Nordic region. Even
from an industrial point of view it is therefore not clear why it would be in anyone(cid:146)s interest to have
competition between such companies eliminated through a merger.

Third, to allow mergers leading to dominant positions in even small home markets would, in addition to
being unlawful under the Merger Regulation, lead to discrimination against customers and consumers in
smaller Member States. These customers would become exposed to the dominance and would not be
protected in the same way as if they had lived in a large Member State. It would also lead to discrimination
against companies from larger Member States, which would be barred from entering the markets of the
dominant firm, whereas the merged entity would be able to enter the more open (and possibly larger)
Member States. Companies from larger Member States would also be discriminated by not being able to
claim this peculiar (cid:145)small market defence(cid:146).

Finally, firms based in smaller countries and which have high market shares in their home markets, such as
Volvo and Scania, are certainly not precluded from expanding through mergers. In fact they have many
options for cross-border mergers, a fact which is amply shown by the involvement of both firms in new
transactions (with Volkswagen and Renault respectively), within a very short period after the Commission(cid:146)s
decision.

In conclusion, the Commission strongly believes that there are no grounds for the allegation that the
application of the competition rules discriminates against firms from smaller Member States. The process
of market definition treats all companies in a uniform way. It does not focus on whether the relevant
geographic area is large or small, neither whether this area constitutes a border area or central region.
Instead, the focus is, and must be, on the competitive constraints faced by the companies operating in the
economically relevant area.

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.

(2001/C 81 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2093/00

by Gianfranco Dell(cid:146)Alba (TDI) to the Commission

(28 June 2000)

Subject: Alleged fraud at the Stockholm Information Office involving € 648

Now that it is aware of just how serious are the accusations made against officials of the Commission(cid:146)s
representation in Stockholm and of
just how huge was the amount allegedly embezzled, can the
Commission indicate the cost of the inquiry conducted by OLAF (broken down by type of expenditure)
and the procedures in accordance with which the officials were suspended, together with the cost relating
thereto during the period concerned?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2000)

The Commission would point out that it is obliged to examine (via OLAF) any allegations of irregularities
committed by its officials and other servants which are liable to damage the Communities(cid:146) financial
interests. As last pointed out in its communication of 28 June 2000 The protection of the Communities(cid:146)
financial interests (cid:129) The fight against fraud (cid:129) For an overall strategic approach (1), the Commission must
pursue a policy of zero tolerance in this field if it is to maintain its credibility.

It therefore considers the cost of the Stockholm inquiry to be fully justified (expenses for the two missions
carried out from 22 to 25 November 1999 and from 11 to 14 January 2000: € 8 777; working hours
spent on the inquiry: approximately 180 man/days). The damage caused to the Community (cid:129) including

13.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/143

financial losses (cid:129) cannot be assessed until the legal inquiries currently under way in Sweden have been
wound up. However, the small sum referred to in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question does not correspond
to the sums under examination in the framework of the inquiry.

The Commission would point out that the procedures initiated in this case (disciplinary proceedings
against the officials and dismissal of the local staff) are under way.

(1) COM(2000) 358 final.

(2001/C 81 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2099/00

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Excessive cross-border transfer charges and cartel behaviour of banks in EU

Does the Commission regard the survey published on 23 May on cross-border transfer payments to be the
start of more detailed examination of the banking industry(cid:146)s poor record across the EU on charges to
citizens? Or does it intend to publish the long-awaited report on the alleged cartel behaviour of certain
banks as announced by former Commissioner Van Miert in September 1999 and now the responsibility of
Commissioner Monti? Would it not have been appropriate for the Commission to dovetail the work of this
report with the findings of the survey announced by Commissioners Byrne and Bolkestein on 23 May so
that we could have had a more complete picture?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The question of excessive cross-border transfer charges is not a matter of competition policy but of the
internal market and competition. The Members of the Commission with responsibility for these policies
have asked the banks and the Member States to do more to reduce the level of bank charges to customers.

From the point of view of the competition rules, a bank is free to set its charges at any level provided that
it does so freely and independently. If consumers feel that the charges applied by one bank are too high
they will penalise it by taking their custom elsewhere. On the other hand, if the banks were to combine to
fix their charges, either to increase them or to maintain them at a high level, this would constitute a
serious violation of the Community rules on competition, since price-fixing agreements are against the
consumers(cid:146) interests.

At the beginning of 1999, immediately after the introduction of the euro, and following a large number of
complaints about the cost of cross-border transactions, the Member of the Commission responsible for
competition took the decision to launch a series of investigations in the eleven Member States participating
in Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).

The purpose of these investigations is to establish whether the banks or banking federations or associations
had struck an agreement to fix the structure or level of bank charges paid by customers. The investigations
were concerned with several kinds of bank transactions, including exchanging banknotes and cross-border
transfers.

As regards exchanging banknotes, the Commission has just sent statements of objections to over a
hundred banking establishments and federations in four Member States. These statements of objections
present the documentary evidence gathered by the Commission which shows that these banks and banking
federations fixed charges for exchanging banknotes and coins. Other statements of objections concerning
the same type of operation will be sent to banks and banking federations in other Member States before
the summer.

On the question of cross-border transfers, the investigations, which involve the processing of a large mass
of information, are still in progress.