WRITTEN QUESTION E-2788/00 by Jo Leinen (PSE) to the Commission. Discrimination against EU citizens.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, anti-discriminatory measure, case-law (EU), discrimination on the basis of nationality, free movement of persons, highway code, police checks

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/95

Finally, it should be underlined that the Regulation does not prevent certain private organisations from
imposing stricter provisions in order to satisfy the use of their private label.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and
indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 198, 22.7.1991), as last amended by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1437/2000 (OJ L 161, 1.7.2000).
(2) See annex III, section A1, point 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91.

(2001/C 136 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2783/00

by Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Danish law requiring a security to be lodged when registering companies in Denmark

Denmark has recently introduced a law requiring a security to be lodged when registering companies. This
is a security for payment of VAT, schedule A tax, labour market contributions and corporate taxation in
cases where the company in question has assets worth less than DKK 125 000. Should the company fail to
lodge a security, it cannot be registered in Denmark.

The law is said to have been introduced in order to prevent companies with a weaker capital base than
Danish-based private limited companies from trading in Denmark, cf. the European Court of Justice(cid:146)s
Centros judgment of 9 March 1999.

Does the Commission consider this new Danish practice requiring a security to be lodged for companies
with assets worth less than DKK 125 000 that wish to operate in Denmark to be in conformity with
Community rules?

How does it view the fact that a company established in accordance with UK requirements (which are
milder than the Danish requirements concerning company capital) cannot benefit from the UK require-
ments when trading in Denmark because there is now a requirement to lodge a security which is of the
same amount as the capital requirement that applies with regard to the establishment of Danish private
limited companies but which cannot be applied to companies from other EU countries wishing to set up
in business in Denmark?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2000)

On the basis of the information currently at its disposal, the Commission is unable to give a definitive
answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s written question.

As soon as it receives additional information from the Danish authorities, the Commission will be able to
make a detailed examination of the provisions in question and decide whether they conform with the
principles of the EC Treaty as recalled by the Court of Justice in its Centros judgment, to which the
Honourable Member also refers.

(2001/C 136 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2788/00

by Jo Leinen (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against EU citizens

A German national was stopped on 12 June 2000 near MonbØliard (France) because he was transporting a
radar detention device which was not however switched on (this is confirmed in writing by the police
officer carrying out the check).

C 136 E/96

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

Irrespective of whether proceedings involving a fine or prosecution were to be instituted, the German
national was not allowed to continue his journey with his vehicle unless he paid immediately an on-the-
spot cash deposit of FRF 10 000 (the maximum possible penalty).

Does the Commission take the view that this has to be seen as a curtailment of the free movement of
persons guaranteed by Article 14(2) of the EC Treaty and constitutes inadmissible discrimination against an
EU citizen since the payment of such on-the-spot deposits is not required in France from its own
nationals?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2000)

The Commission has analysed the facts alluded to by the Honourable Member, following a complaint
lodged by the German citizen in question.

Article 12 (formerly Article 6) of the EC Treaty prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality and
precludes any administrative or criminal penalties imposed by national authorities on nationals of the
Member States in a discriminatory, unjustified and disproportionate manner. In its judgment of 23 January
1997 in Pastoors (Case C-29/95), the Court of Justice found that, in the absence of a convention to ensure
the enforcement of court decisions in criminal matters between Member States, a Member State may
impose the payment of a deposit on non-residents if,
in the event of an infringement, they opt for
continuation of criminal proceedings rather than immediate payment of a fine. However, according to the
same decision, Article 12 EC precludes the imposition of a deposit that is higher than the sum to be paid
in the event of an immediate fine.

Under Article 26 of the French Road Traffic Code, offenders who are neither resident nor employed in
France and who opt for continuation of normal criminal proceedings against them rather than immediate
payment of a flat-rate or reduced fine (cid:129) whichever is applicable (cid:129) must pay a deposit, the amount of
which is fixed by decree, failing which their vehicle will be impounded. The complainant paid FRF 5 000
by way of a deposit, whereas the maximum penalty for this type of infringement is FRF 10 000, except in
the case of repeat offences. According to the information in the Commission(cid:146)s possession, the complainant
does not appear to have suffered discriminatory treatment.

On the basis of the above Court decision, the difference in treatment between residents and non-residents
provided for in the French Road Traffic Code is objectively justified, as there is a real danger that
a decision against a non-resident may prove impossible to enforce or at least considerably more difficult
and more expensive to enforce. This difference therefore constitutes neither discrimination in breach of
Article 12 of the EC Treaty nor a restriction on the right to free movement of persons guaranteed by
Article 14(2) EC.

(2001/C 136 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2791/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Porpoise and dolphin deaths

Given the large numbers of dolphins and porpoises that currently die when caught in fishing nets in North
European waters, why did the Commission fail to attend the international Ascobans conference in Bristol
at the end of July which sought to confront this threat to wildlife?

What response has it made to the conclusions of the conference?