WRITTEN QUESTION E-3429/00 by Manuel Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Safety at sea.
Date: 2000-11-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common transport policy, competence of the Member States, maritime safety, occupational safety

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/167

(2001/C 151 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3427/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Commission power over abuse of a dominant position

(7 November 2000)

What powers does the Commission have, if it becomes aware of a dominant position in a market, to
reintroduce competitive features into the market? Will the Commission please describe the powers to order
a break-up of dominant businesses under United States law, and state whether it is in favour of introducing
similar powers into EU competition policy? If it is not in favour, what features of the EU make such
powers unnecessary compared to the US?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2000)

In Community competition law the conduct of dominant firms is regulated by Article 82 (ex Article 86) of
the EC Treaty. Article 82 prohibits the abuse of a dominant position. It does not as such prohibit
dominance. The Commission has no power under Article 82 to intervene against a lack of competition,
which is due purely to the existence of a dominant position.

The Commission has the power to prohibit abuse of a dominant position and accordingly to require the
dominant firm to bring the abuse to an end. To that effect the Commission may impose on the dominant
firm an obligation to take positive actions. The obligations imposed may include remedies of a structural
nature in case such a remedy is necessary in order to bring the infringement effectively to an end. It
follows from the principle of proportionality that any remedy must not exceed what is necessary to end
the infringement.

In the exercise of its powers the Commission has, for example, required a dominant firm to divest a
minority shareholding in a competing undertaking, which allowed the dominant firm to gain influence
over the commercial policy of a competitor and thereby to strengthen its dominant position.

Section 2 of the American Sherman Act prohibits monopolisation of a market and any attempts to do so.
Like Article 82, Section 2 does not as such prohibit dominance. It prohibits the creation and maintenance
of monopoly power by anti-competitive means. The remedies that can be imposed by the courts in
monopolisation cases include divestiture, provided that such a remedy is required to end the violation. In
some cases divestiture can amount to breaking up a dominant firm.

(2001/C 151 E/193)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3429/00

by Manuel PØrez `lvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2000)

Subject: Safety at sea

Following the accident which befell the Galician vessel, the (cid:145)Arosa(cid:146), on 3 October 2000 in the Great Sole
fishing grounds off the Irish coast, in which 12 people lost their lives, does the Commission plan to
introduce a programme of any kind to combat accidents at sea, be they accidents at work in the strict
sense or accidents resulting in the loss of human life in a shipwreck? Will an awareness raising campaign
of any kind be adopted forthwith and introduced in the short term with a view to improving the safety of
workers at sea?

C 151 E/168

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

The Commission is most concerned about the loss of life arising from the loss of the British registered
fishing vessel (cid:145)Arosa(cid:146) off the Irish coast. Consequently, by letter of 8 November 2000, the Commission
requested information from the United Kingdom concerning the implementation of Council Directive 97/
70/EC of 11 December 1997 regarding a harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in
length and over (1).

There is an extensive package of Community legislation on maritime safety in place addressing a wide
range of subjects and different types of ship operation. Following the (cid:145)Erika(cid:146) accident the Commission
adopted, on 21 March 2000, a communication addressed to the Parliament and the Council (2). This
presents a number of legislative proposals to enhance safety at sea. As a first step, the Commission
presents regulatory measures to reinforce the existing directives concerning classification societies and port
state control, and the adoption of a regulation on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull tankers. The
first two proposals are of a general nature covering all different ship types. As a second step, the
Commission will propose measures concerning the surveillance of navigation, a European structure for
maritime safety and the liability of the various parties in the shipping community. These further proposals
will be submitted to the Parliament in the course of December 2000.

Additionally, in May 2000 the Commission proposed a directive on the safe loading and unloading of bulk
carriers (3) aimed at improving the quality of operation and thus avoiding structural damage to vessels
which may result in ship casualties.

Furthermore, the Commission is drafting a communication on the training and recruitment of seafarers
which will integrate the existing Community measures on social maritime issues. This will address the
issue regarding the need for adequate training of seafarers working on board Community ships.

Finally, as far as measures to improve the health and safety of workers on board fishing vessels are
concerned, the Commission wishes to bring to the attention of the Honourable Member Council Directive
93/103/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for work on
board fishing vessels (4), and Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and
health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels (5). The Member States have all
communicated the national measures intended to implement these two Directives.

It is essential, in the light of the principle of subsidiarity, that the national authorities responsible for
enforcement continue to control and safeguard the application of the national provisions taken to
implement the directives. In this way the directives can contribute efficiently to a reduction in the number
of accidents.

(1) OJ L 34, 9.2.1998.
(2) Communication from the Commission on the safety of the seaborne oil trade, COM(2000) 142 final.
(3) OJ C 311 E, 31.10.2000.
(4) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
(5) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992.

(2001/C 151 E/194)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3433/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Gianfranco Fini (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Floods in northern Italy

(7 November 2000)

As a result of the current spate of bad weather in northern Italy, dozens of people have died, hundreds
injured and thousands evacuated; road and rail traffic has been disrupted, hundreds of communes have
been isolated, rivers have burst their banks, and bridges, roads and buildings have collapsed.