WRITTEN QUESTION E-2118/00 by Giovanni Procacci (ELDR) to the Commission. Proceedings No 94/4855 brought by the Commission against the restrictions imposed by the Evin law on the broadcasting in France of sports events held abroad.
Date: 2000-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, advertising, alcoholic beverage, free movement of programmes, health control, intra-EU trade, sporting event, television

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/151

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The commercial practice referred to by the Honourable Member is based on a criterion relating to the
vehicle, i.e. its cylinder capacity, which is taken into account when insurance companies assess a risk. As
far as the Commission is aware, the criterion of engine size or power is taken into account by insurance
companies in most Member States, including Finland.

Fixing premiums is part of the commercial policy of all companies, and they are free to choose the criteria
and methods for assessing loss ratios. The Commission cannot intervene in an area which is covered by
the principle of contractual freedom, especially as the very core of the Community provisions in this area
demands that premiums be determined freely by insurance companies on the basis of their own tariff
criteria.

Community law, through the Third Non-life Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the
coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life
assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (1), allows any insurer in a Member State
to carry on class 10 insurance business in the field of compulsory third-party motor insurance in any other
Member State, whether through a branch or under the freedom to provide services. Thus a motorcyclist
may take out compulsory third-party liability insurance for a motorbike registered in Finland with an
insurer established in a Member State other than Finland, provided that the insurer is authorised to do so
by the Member State of origin and is also a member of the motor vehicle insurers(cid:146) bureau and the Finnish
motor vehicle guarantee fund (2). Membership of the two bodies is necessary in order to guarantee the
operation of the (cid:145)green card(cid:146) system and compulsory motor vehicle civil liability insurance established by
Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement
the Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of
of
30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against
civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (4) and the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of
14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil
liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (5). The legal framework enabling consumers to choose the
insurance products that best suits them and the insurer they prefer, irrespective of the Member State of
origin, is thus in place.

the obligation to insure against

such liability (3),

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.
(2) Directive 90/618/EEC (OJ L 330, 29.11.1990), as amended by Directive 92/49/EEC (OJ L 228, 11.8.1992).
(3) OJ L 103, 2.5.1972.
(4) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984.
(5) OJ L 129, 19.5.1990.

(2001/C 89 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2118/00

by Giovanni Procacci (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Proceedings No 94/4855 brought by the Commission against the restrictions imposed by the (cid:145)Evin

law(cid:146) on the broadcasting in France of sports events held abroad

It would seem that the Commission at last intends to take firm action to put an end to the discrimination
in France against the broadcasting of sporting events held in other countries,
if advertising hoardings
featuring alcoholic beverages are shown, introduced by the (cid:145)Evin law(cid:146).

The European wine-producing industry, via the complaint lodged with the Commission by producers of
French DOC and Bordeaux wines, has been monitoring with concern the action of the French authorities,
which penalises wine in particular.

C 89 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

The current situation, in which legal certainty is not guaranteed, constitutes a blatant infringement of
freedom to provide services in the internal market, as mentioned in the reasoned opinion sent to France by
the Commission in 1996. Furthermore, the establishment of a category of multinational events, drawn up
in the context of the (cid:145)Code of Conduct(cid:146), which can be broadcast despite the presence of advertisements for
alcoholic drinks, shows that the measure implemented by the French authorities is out of all proportion,
especially if one considers that these multinational events are among the most important and popular
sports events (European and world football championships, etc).

On 7 June Commissioner Bolkestein and the French Culture Minister Catherine Tasca initialled an
agreement designed to ensure respect for the principle of legal certainty, as laid down by the Court of
Justice of the EC, and respect for the other fundamental principles laid down in the Treaty, such as the free
movement of services.

Can the Commission therefore say:

(cid:129) what the agreement signed with the French Culture Minister contained;

(cid:129) to what extent this agreement complies with the principle of free movement of services in the internal
market and the principle of legal certainty, since a code of conduct cannot constitute a derogation
from a criminal law provision such as the Evin law?

(2001/C 89 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2197/00

by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2000)

Subject: Restrictions imposed by the Evin law (France) on the televised broadcasting in France of sporting

events held abroad

The written question of 28 February to the Commission (E-550/00) (1) expressed Parliament(cid:146)s concern at
the manner in which the Evin law is being applied in France, causing the broadcasting of sporting events
held abroad to be cancelled because of the presence of hoardings advertising certain makes of alcoholic
beverage and,
in particular, at the fact that the complaint which gave rise to the reasoned opinion
forwarded by the Commission to France in July 1996 identifying this practice as a restriction on the free
movement of services had been shelved.

In his reply of 10 April 2000 Commissioner Bolkestein undertook (cid:145)to seek personally an effective
resolution to the issue(cid:146) and (cid:145)to meet with the relevant French ministers in Paris [(cid:133)] to discuss this
infringement procedure(cid:146).

According to the information received by Parliament, Commissioner Bolkestein met Mrs Catherine Tasca,
French Minister for Cultural Affairs, in Paris on 7 June. Did this meeting produce a satisfactory solution to
the problems referred to in the reasoned opinion?

Is it true that the Commission asked the French authorities to make adjustments to the code of good
conduct without actually questioning its existence, despite the fact that it constitutes the main obstacle to
the application of the principle of legal certainty established by the Court of Justice of the European
Communities?

Does the Commission believe that adjustments to the code of good conduct are sufficient to bring about a
satisfactory solution guaranteeing free movement of services and respect
legal
certainty?

for the principle of

Have the French authorities given assurances that criminal courts will effectively apply the principles
contained in the code of good conduct, given that they are normally only bound by the provisions of the
Evin law?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 185.