WRITTEN QUESTION E-3141/00 by Benedetto Della Vedova (TDI) to the Commission. Take-over of DHL by Deutsche Post.
Date: 2000-10-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, State aid, dominant position, infringement procedure (EU), monopoly, postal and telecommunications services, postal charges, postal service

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/193

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

No provision is made in Community legislation for specific aid to any part of the fishery sector other than
fishermen themselves in cases where a fishery agreement is not renewed or is suspended.

Aid can however be given for fishing port facilities and fishery product processing and marketing
installations under restructuring programmes for the sector for the period 2000-2006 in both Objective 1
and non-Objective 1 regions. Decisions to grant aid, which must be covered by a programme approved by
the Commission and conform with common fishery policy aims, are taken by the Member State.

(2001/C 136 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3138/00

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: European anthem

At a concert by the European Youth Orchestra on 20 September 2000, the (cid:145)European anthem(cid:146), originally a
composition by Ludwig van Beethoven, was played as the opening item. As the music started, the
Commissioners, led by President Prodi, suddenly stood up as if for a national anthem. The EU is not a
state nor a nation, so it cannot have a national anthem. What is the legal basis for the Commission(cid:146)s
practice of standing when Beethoven(cid:146)s composition is played?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 November 2000)

The choice of a European anthem was one of the items covered by the report which the ad hoc
Committee for a People(cid:146)s Europe chaired by Mr Adonnino, presented to the European Council at the
latter(cid:146)s request on 28/29 June 1985. The European Council formally approved the proposals contained
in the report,
including the proposal relating to the anthem. Parliament recorded its agreement on
13 November 1985 and the Commission did likewise on 10 December 1985.

During an informal meeting of the Presidents of Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 12 March
1986, instructions were given to the Secretaries-General of the three institutions to work out the technical
details of all the European symbols adopted by the European Council. This was done and a decision was
taken on 20 March 1985. Thus the European anthem came into being as one of the symbols of the Union.
This does not mean that it should be treated as a national anthem nor does it give the Union the status of
a state or nation.

Under these circumstances it is usual for the institutions, including Parliament to have the anthem played
on specific occasions and for the Members of the Commission, like any other citizen who wishes to do so,
to stand in order to show their attachment to the common undertaking.

(2001/C 136 E/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3141/00

by Benedetto Della Vedova (TDI) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Take-over of DHL by Deutsche Post

The press has reported that Deutsche Post AG (DP), the postal services company controlled by the German
Government, is about to take over the DHL group. Since DP has a monopoly on the German market in

C 136 E/194

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

the delivery of letters weighing less than 200 grams and since the Commission has itself observed that the
resources generated by this monopoly (which since 1984 has always made a substantial profit, thanks to
some of the highest postage rates in Europe, set by the State) are used systematically by DP to offset the
losses made on activities open to competitors (ordinary commercial activities such as parcel post, which
have always operated at a loss), this constitutes indirect State aid.

The profits generated by the monopoly provide DP with the financial resources it needs to acquire control
of a large number of competitors, the latest of which is DHL.

What stage has been reached in the cases being brought against DP by the Commission (in particular that
initiated in July 1999 concerning State aids and the cases brought in May and August 2000 relating to
abuse of a dominant position in the international coach transport sector and in the mail-order sector
respectively) and what steps will it take to prevent the income enjoyed by DP as a result of its monopoly
(cid:129) undoubtedly excessive as regards public service obligations and justified neither by the Directive on
postal services nor by Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty (cid:129) from interfering with the proper operation of
competition in the postal sector?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

In response to a number of complaints, and a judgement in the Court of first instance finding that the
Commission had wrongly failed to act in the matter, the Commission, on 8 August 2000, initiated formal
proceedings against the German postal operator Deutsche Post AG for abuse of its dominant position (1).
These proceedings are concerned in the first place with Deutsche Post(cid:146)s pricing of parcel delivery services
for mail-order business. The Commission(cid:146)s preliminary enquiries suggest that Deutsche Post allows large
mail-order traders substantial discounts if they undertake to send all their parcels through Deutsche Post.
This means that no private provider of parcel services to mail-order firms has been able to achieve any
firm foothold in Germany. The proceedings likewise question the postage charged by Deutsche Post for the
letters it delivers under its monopoly rights.

In light of new evidence concerning Deutsche Post AG(cid:146)s contracts with its major mail order customers, the
Commission, on 4 October 2000, has widened the scope of its formal proceedings launched on 8 August
2000 against the German postal operator (2). The Commission(cid:146)s examination of these contracts has
revealed that they contain a combination of fidelity and target rebates. According to these rebate schemes
Deutsche Post grants discounts to its large mail-order traders on the double condition of them sending all
their parcels and an annual minimum volume through Deutsche Post AG. Deutsche Post(cid:146)s rebate scheme
means that no private provider of parcel services to mail-order firms has been able to achieve any firm
foothold in Germany. Discounts of this kind have lock-in effects that damage competition.

In February 2000, while the investigation into the mail-order sector continued, the German Association of
Postal Service Users ((cid:145)DVPT(cid:146)) lodged a complaint against what it alleged was an excessive level of postage
for the letters service which does form part of Deutsche Post(cid:146)s monopoly. The association argued that
postage for standard letters bore no reasonable relation to the service actually provided. The Commission
made enquiries, and requested further information from Deutsche Post.

From a detailed comparison, which also took account of quality of service and population density, it
appeared that German customers were paying by far the highest postage in Europe.

Formal proceedings for the infringement of the EC Treaty competition rules begin with the sending of
what is known as a (cid:145)statement of objections(cid:146). The statement of objections sent to Deutsche Post gives a
detailed account of the allegations made and explains why the Commission believes that Deutsche Post has

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/195

infringed Article 82 (ex Article 86) of the EC Treaty. In preparing its defence, Deutsche Post has the right
to consult the relevant documents which are in the Commission(cid:146)s file. It has two months in which to make
submissions on the objections raised by the Commission. Deutsche Post may produce evidence of its own,
and may ask for a hearing at which it can present its defence also orally.

The Commission will then decide whether it should prohibit the conduct at issue. The Commission also
has power to impose fines for infringement of the Community competition rules. The level of the fine
depends on the gravity and the duration of the infringement.

In July 1999 the Commission initiated proceedings for unlawful state aid. Those proceedings are concerned
with cross-subsidisation of a number of domestic and foreign company acquisitions by Deutsche Post
using revenue from the general letter mail monopoly, and the use of revenue from the letters service to
offset losses on the parcel service (3).

In May 2000, following a number of complaints, the Commission initiated separate proceedings for abuse
of Deutsche Post(cid:146)s dominant position, on the ground that Deutsche Post had disturbed international mail
traffic (4). The Commission accused Deutsche Post of infringing the competition rules of the Community by
frequently and systematically intercepting incoming cross-border mail, imposing surcharges and delaying
delivery. The proceedings in that case have no direct implications for the other cases referred to above.

(1) Commission(cid:146)s press release IP/00/919.
(2) Commission(cid:146)s press release IP 00/1108.
(3)
(4)

see IP/99/530.
see IP/00/562.

(2001/C 136 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3152/00

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Barriers to exports to Germany owing to type-approval problems

ReCoDrive AB, a Swedish firm which manufactures control systems for lorries, says that its products have
been banned in Germany despite having been approved in another Member State.

It says it is now being forced to apply for type approval in each German Land, which, moreover, have
differing opinions, for a product that was approved in Sweden over ten years ago.

What view does the Commission take of this case of type approval problems?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Having received a complaint from the Swedish National Board of Trade on behalf of the company
ReCoDrive AB, the Commission is aware of the problems encountered by the Swedish company in
marketing its (cid:145)out-of-cab(cid:146) driving system intended for use in lorries in Germany.

In order to take the appropriate measures, the Commission needs detailed information on the product, on
the CE-marking, on the certificates of Swedish authorities or of authorities of other Member States, on the
steps already taken by the company to market the product and on the measures taken by the German
authorities to ban the product. Contact has been established between the Commission and the company.
As soon as the required information, which is essential for the assessment of the complaint, has been
received, the Commission will take appropriate measures (contacting the German authorities or opening
proceedings under Article 226 (ex Aticle 169) of the EC Treaty).