WRITTEN QUESTION E-3516/00 by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Supply restrictions imposed on commercial vehicles by Mitsubishi-Deutschland.
Date: 2000-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: commercial vehicle, competition law, dealer, distributive trades, trade restriction

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/149

The Dutch energy pricing system has been examined within the context of state aid measure N 464/94.
The Commission concluded that the tariff based on the notified formula did not give an economic
advantage to glass house horticulture vis-(cid:224)-vis other sectors of the Dutch economy which can obtain the
same tariff, if they use the same quantities of gas. Therefore, it was concluded that the agreement between
Gasunie and the Dutch horticulturists did not constitute aid.

That agreement has in the meantime been renewed. The price of gas is linked with the price of heavy fuel
oil. Every quarter the price of gas is adjusted to the average price of heavy fuel oil over the last 12 months
before the quarter concerned. As the principles underlying the new agreement remain the same as in case
N 464/94, there is no need for the Commission to re-examine this matter. By way of conclusion, there is
no indication that the Dutch energy prices for glasshouse heating constitute a violation of Community
competition rules.

2.

The Commission envisages no action in this specific field.

3.
Such measures would have to be examined on the basis of state aid rules. In the absence of more
information on the specifics of such measures, the Commission is not in a position to indicate whether
such measures would be compatible.

(2001/C 163 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3516/00

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Supply restrictions imposed on commercial vehicles by Mitsubishi-Deutschland

The firm of Mitsubishi-Deutschland (MMC Auto Deutschland GmbH in D-65488 Trebur) is endeavouring
to compel its business partners to sign the following undertakings: (cid:145)The firm (cid:133) hereby undertakes not to
supply Mitsubishi commercial vehicles for competition purposes to unauthorised resellers. Commercial
vehicles also means vehicles that have been registered for only one or a few days without having been used
on the roads as intended.(cid:146) A contract penalty of DEM 10 001 is payable where this condition is breached.

1.

Is the Commission of the opinion that such supply restrictions are compatible with the EC Treaty?

2.

How does it view this specific case?

3. What action does it intend to take on this issue?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Under the Block Exemption Regulation (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the
application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing
agreements (1)), manufacturers or importers may refuse to allow their dealers to sell new vehicles to
resellers outside the distribution network. Resellers include (apparent) final consumers who purchase new
vehicles with the intention of reselling them, i.e. for the purposes of trade (2). The ban is intended to
safeguard the manufacturer(cid:146)s or importer(cid:146)s choice of distribution system.

C 163 E/150

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

The undertaking demanded by Mitsubishi Germany serves to implement the ban preventing official
Mitsubishi dealers from supplying resellers, which is in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1475/95.
The wording of the undertaking referred to is therefore admissible under Regulation (EC) No 1475/95.

(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.
(2) See also the Commission notice (OJ C 17, 18.1.1995) regarding the (former) Regulation (EEC) No 123
of 12 December 1984 (OJ L 15, 18.1.1985) which was replaced in 1995 by Regulation (EC) No 1475/95
(see footnote 1). This notice still applies.

(2001/C 163 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3518/00

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Lloyds and the US financial markets

Is the current investigation of Lloyds impacting on the talks between the Commission and the US
Administration on the opening of American financial markets to EU companies?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

The trade talks between the Commission and the United States on opening the American insurance market
to Community companies under the trans-Atlantic economic partnership are independent of any investiga-
tion of Lloyds carried out by the Commission.

(2001/C 163 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3521/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: New charges against Mr Marzouki in Tunisia

On 23 October 2000, Mr Moncef Marzouki was ordered to appear before Mr Armor Ben Mansour, the
most senior examining judge, on charges of being a member of an unrecognised association (National
Council for Liberties in Tunisia), spreading false reports, discrediting the administration of public order,
discrediting the administration of justice, distributing leaflets likely to disturb public order, and inciting
citizens to rebel against the laws of the country. Mr Marzouki had just returned from Morocco, where he
had taken part in meetings of the Euro-mediterranean human rights network in preparation for the
EuroMed Civil Forum on the subject of the right of association, as well as in a congress of Arab defenders
of human rights. He was due to take part in a colloquium in Barcelona organised by the EuroMed Greens
network. These very serious charges could mean a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. Furthermore,
Mr Marzouki has again been refused the right to travel.

Does the Commission not consider that this legal case on the basis of the expression of opinions, the
fourth such case brought against Mr Marzouki, is one of many instances of the consolidation in Tunisia of
a police state founded on the systematic violation of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and
the right of association?

Does the Commission not consider that the time has come to initiate steps with regard to compliance with
the human rights clause as laid down in the association agreement between Tunisia and the EU?

If that is not the case, what measures does the Commission intend to take to persuade the Tunisian
authorities to put an end to the antidemocratic, police-state-oriented trend in the country and finally to
pursue a path of democratic reform and establishment of the rule of law?