WRITTEN QUESTION E-3517/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Inntrepeneur Beer Tie.
Date: 2000-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, beer, catering industry, common commercial policy, monopoly

C 174 E/68

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

in the light of the European rules on state aid. The procedure provided for in Article 88 of the Treaty
might be initiated for some of these measures.

(1) Council Decision of 17.12.1999 authorising Member States to apply and to continue to apply to certain mineral
oils, when used for specific purposes, existing reduced rates of excise duty or exemptions from excise duty, OJ L
331, 23.12.1999.

(2) Council Decision of 17.07.2000 authorising Italy to apply reductions in excise duties on certain mineral oils used

for specific purposes, OJ L 180, 19.7.2000.

(2001/C 174 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3517/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Inntrepeneur Beer Tie

A number of public houses in the UK are let under an Inntrepeneur twenty-year lease, which imposes an
obligation on those tenants to buy their beer from a supplier nominated by Inntrepeneur (what is known
as the (cid:145)Beer Tie(cid:146)). The validity of the Inntrepeneur Beer Tie was the subject of a large number of complaints
to the Commission by tenants and tenants(cid:146) groups who felt that the Beer Tie infringed the Union(cid:146)s rules on
competition under Article 81 (formerly Article 85) of the Consolidated Treaty. In November 1997, the
European Commission rejected Inntrepeneur(cid:146)s application for an individual exemption in respect of the
beer tie on the basis that it was unreasonable. The European Commission decided against publishing a
formal decision to that effect on the grounds that it was not necessary to do so since Inntrepeneur had
withdrawn its application for an exemption and that the tenants who had suffered damages as a result of
the imposition of the unlawful beer tie would have an adequate remedy in the national courts.

Hundreds of Inntrepeneur(cid:146)s tenants have pursued their claims in the English courts, and their claim for a
remedy in damages for the imposition of the (cid:145)Beer Tie(cid:146) in the past has been referred to the European Court
of Justice by the Court of Appeal in the test case Crehan -v- Courage. However, they have been prevented
from pursuing two other important aspects of their claim by a decision of the House of Lords taken on
16 July 1999 to refuse leave to appeal in two other cases (cid:129) Inntrepeneur -v- Langton and Passmore -v-
Morland. In the Langton case, the tenant was seeking a ruling (inter alia) that the principle of effective
remedy under European law entitled a tenant to be permitted to set off any claim for rent arrears against a
claim against the landlord. In the Passmore case, the tenant sought a ruling on the interpretation of Article
81(2) which provides that (cid:145)any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be
automatically void(cid:146). In that case, the landlord was arguing that (cid:145)automatically void(cid:146) meant void only so
long as the economic circumstances giving rise to the infringement of Article 81 remained in existence,
whilst the tenant argued that the clear and obvious meaning of (cid:145)automatically void(cid:146) was that the restriction
was void, and could never be resurrected irrespective of any change in circumstances. Is the Commission
aware of the legal reasons given the House of Lords for non-referral, and does the Commission propose to
refer the cases itself?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2001)

In the cases to which the Honourable Member refers, the House of Lords did not refer any question to the
Court of Justice pursuant to Article 234 (ex Article 177) of the EC Treaty because it refused leave to appeal
from the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the House of Lords was not seised of the case. As a matter of
English law, the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords does not state reasons for granting or refusing
leave to appeal. As a result, the Commission does not know of the reasons why the House of Lords refused
to consider the matter of the appeal and of a preliminary reference, if such a reference had been requested
in the Petition of the Appellants.

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/69

The Commission has no power to refer a case to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in the
circumstances described in the question. According to Article 234 of the EC Treaty, only a court of a
Member State may make such a reference.

The sole power which the Commission has is to investigate the matter with a view to bringing proceedings
against the United Kingdom under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. In its answer to Written
Question P-1191/00 by Mr Kirkhope (1) the Commission stated that it was in fact investigating the matter.

Finally, it should be noted that a series of questions have been referred to the Court of Justice by the
Hovr(cid:228)tten f(cid:246)r V(cid:228)stra Sverige in case C-99/00 (2) which raise the issue of the compatibility with Article 234
of the EC Treaty of a system whereby leave to appeal is necessary before a case is heard by the supreme
court.

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 96.
(2) OJ C 149, 27.5.2000.

(2001/C 174 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3522/00

by Marie-Noºlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Animal meal

In the face of the growing risks of infection with BSE and the implications this may have for human
health, does the Commission not consider it essential to prohibit the use of animal meal in feed?

Such a ban would ensure greater protection for consumers, and would be possible to implement as it
would only be necessary to step up European production of oil protein crops, releasing certain land set
aside?

Does the Commission intend to put forward proposals to that effect, and how does it intend to respond to
concerns about food safety on the part of consumers, who are increasingly rejecting the use of such meal?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2001)

The Commission shares the Honourable Members(cid:146) concern in this area.

The Commission put forward a proposal prohibiting the feeding of all processed animal proteins, including
animal meals, to all farmed animals, for a transitional period of 6 months.

This proposal was adopted by Council Decision 2000/766/EC (1).

This Decision may be adapted by the Commission before the 30 June 2001 to the situation of each
Member States in the light of the results of Commission inspections and the incidence of the bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).

(1) OJ L 306, 7.12.2000.