WRITTEN QUESTION E-2113/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission. Recommendation of the Spanish Competition Court on the transition to competition in the electricity industry.
Date: 2000-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, State aid, administrative court, competition law, control of State aid, electrical energy, oligopoly

13.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/145

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that a proposal for a Council recommenda-
tion concerning osteoporosis is in preparation. It is the Commission(cid:146)s intention to transmit it to Council
late this year.

The Council recommendation will include specific recommendations in the fields of health monitoring,
health promotion, research as well as for health systems.

(2001/C 81 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2110/00

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Item A-3027

Item A-3027 allocates € 1 500 000 of Community funds to the International Centre for European Training.

Could the Commission specify what this training entails and who receives it?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

The budget line A-3027 covers a financial contribution to the training programme (courses, seminars,
study sessions, colloquia and conferences), to publications and to research in the field of European
integration, according to an action plan established by the (cid:145)Centre International de Formation EuropØenne(cid:146)
(CIFE), 35-37 Rue des Francs-Bourgeois, F-75004 Paris whose directorate general is located at 10 Avenue
des Fleurs, Nice.

The programme comprises principally European study sessions at different universities, summer courses,
international seminars, new sessions of European studies, colloquia and conferences on European current
affairs. Students, teachers and professionals participate in this training programme.

(2001/C 81 E/179)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2113/00

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Recommendation of the Spanish Competition Court on the transition to competition in the

electricity industry

As the Commission is well aware, the Spanish Competition Court (TDC) has recommended that the
Spanish Government oppose the merger of Uni(cid:243)n Fenosa and HidrocantÆbrico, Spain(cid:146)s third and fourth
largest electricity supply companies. In its report the TDC takes the view that there is no real competition
on the Spanish electricity generation market, given that the controlling closed oligopoly is highly likely to
remain in existence for a long time to come.

In what way will the Commission take into account the opinion of the Spanish guardian of competition
when it assesses how competition on the above-mentioned market is being affected by CTCs (costs of
transition to competition), which are currently being studied pursuant to Article 87 of the Treaty?

C 81 E/146

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.3.2001

Will it take the opposite view to the Spanish Competition Court, namely that the prevailing situation
corresponds de facto to a (cid:145)transition to competition(cid:146) tending to justify the CTCs?

How does the Commission think that competition and Spanish consumers might be helped by the
PTA 1 300 000 000 000 granted to four companies forming part of a closed oligopoly in which there is a
distinct lack of actual or potential competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2000)

In accordance with the rules of the EC Treaty on state aid and policy in this area, the Commission assesses
the compatibility of national measures with the common market on the basis of all the information in its
possession, whether or not provided by the national authorities. Naturally, the Commission is responsible
for its final decision.

As the Commission has not yet adopted its decision on the question of transition-to-competition costs on
the Spanish electricity market, it is too early to say whether it will be the same as the opinion of the
Spanish Competition Court. The Commission would, however, point out that the Court(cid:146)s opinion was
delivered from the standpoint of national merger control whereas its own decision will be based on the
control of state aid. Consequently, the Commission will take account of such factors as the liberalisation of
the electricity market following the entry into force of Parliament and Council Directive 96/92/EC of
19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (1), since these are
relevant to an analysis of the costs of transition to competition.

The Commission also believes it would be premature to answer the third question raised by the
Honourable Member until it has adopted its final decision on the case. This decision will obviously state
the reasons on which it is based.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.

(2001/C 81 E/180)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2116/00

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Motorcycle safety equipment

A motorcycle is a form of transport which is particularly vulnerable in a traffic accident. In addition to
helmets, a number of other safety devices are used.

What provisions are in force in the Member States concerning the use of motorcycle helmets and other
safety devices? Does the Commission have any research-based figures on the effectiveness in accidents of
the use of safety devices (other than helmets)? Does the Commission feel it necessary to harmonise the
provisions governing safety devices and their use in the EU?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

In its communication of 17 March 2000 entitled (cid:145)Priorities in EU road safety: Progress Report and Ranking
of Actions(cid:146) (1) the Commission takes the view that protecting vehicle occupants in the event of an impact is
an absolute priority for the Community. This applies inter alia to the wearing of helmets by motorcycle
riders.

In its resolution of 26 June 2000, the Council considered that progress needed to be made in adopting a
directive on the wearing of helmets by motorcycle and moped riders.