WRITTEN QUESTION E-3996/00 by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Different membership fees charged by regional IHKs in Germany.
Date: 2000-12-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, business policy, chamber of commerce and industry, dominant position, free competition, type of business

C 261 E/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

(2001/C 261 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3947/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Wine production methods

Will the Commission confirm that in certain wine-producing Member States it is the practice to use
products made from dried blood in order to clarify wine?

Will the Commission also confirm that such blood may come from cattle?

Does it believe there is any risk of contamination if such blood were to come from BSE infected herds?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

The list of substances which may be used for the clarification of wine is laid down in Annex IV of Council
regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (1). As
blood is not included in this list, it may not be used for this purpose.

In relation to the general point of the safety of bovine blood with respect
to bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, the Scientific Steering Committee has considered the point of the safety of ruminant
blood with respect to transmissible spongiform encephalopathy risks. While it recommended the avoid-
ance of slaughter techniques causing the dispersion of potentially contaminated brain material in the blood
stream, such as pithing, it did not recommend the removal of ruminant blood from the human food chain.
Pithing has since been prohibited by Commission Decision 2000/418/EC of 29 June 2000 regulating the
use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending
Decision 94/474/EC (2).

(1) OJ L 271, 21.10.1999.
(2) OJ L 158, 30.6.2000.

(2001/C 261 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3996/00

by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Different membership fees charged by regional IHKs in Germany

1.
Is the Commission aware that the more than 80 Chambers of Industry and Commerce (IHK) in
Germany, falling under the umbrella Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce (DIHT),
require different levels of contribution from their participating undertakings?

2.

3.

Is the Commission also aware that these differences amount to as much as 300 %?

Does the Commission share the view that competition or cartel regulations are affected?

Does the Commission consider that action needs to be taken regarding the huge differences in

4.
contributions?

5.
In a letter dated 11 April 2000, the (cid:145)Verband innovativer Kfz-Unternehmer und Handelsvertreter e.V.(cid:146)
(Association of Innovative Motor Vehicle Manufacturers and Trade Representatives) (VIKH) called for the
forwarding of an individual exemption, or a negative clearance, for the application of different IHK
member contributions. On what grounds is the Commission refusing to deliver the documentation or
delaying in doing so, or alternatively, why has it still not taken the matter into consideration?

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/17

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2001)

The Commission has already considered questions concerning obligatory membership of and differences in
membership fees for various Chambers of Industry and Commerce (Industrie- und Handelsskammern (cid:129)
IHK) several times. The competition rules of the EC Treaty concern primarily the behaviour of under-
takings or groups of undertakings. This is evidenced by the fact that the relevant Treaty provisions come
into play in situations where there are restrictions of competition caused by agreements or concerted
practices between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings, or the abuse of a dominant
position by an undertaking. Furthermore, EC competition rules are only applicable when there is an
appreciable effect on inter-state trade.

In Germany, the requirement of compulsory membership of a Chamber of Industry and Commerce and
the principles governing the collection of membership fees for same are governed by legislation. The level
of membership fees is determined within this legislative framework. Insofar as differences in the levels of
fees for various Chambers of Industry and Commerce exist, these are based neither on agreements or
concerted practices between undertakings, nor on a decision of an association of undertakings made up of
Chambers of Industry and Commerce. Abuse of a dominant position is automatically ruled out by virtue of
the fact that Chambers of Industry and Commerce are not considered to be undertakings for the purposes
of EC competition rules.

The Commission has already replied to VIHK(cid:146)s (Verband der innovativen Kfz-Unternehmer und Handels-
vertreter e.V (cid:129) Association of innovative motor vehicle entrepreneurs and sales representatives) letter on
2 May 2000. To address the content of that letter, the Commission is not dealing with any application for
negative clearance or exemption. Only the Chambers of Industry and Commerce would have the right to
file such an application, but they have not done so. Besides, due to the legal situation described above, an
application would be neither necessary nor appropriate. Consequently, the Commission has no documents,
the handing over of which it could refuse or delay.

(2001/C 261 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4008/00

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Impact of the German (cid:145)Indusi(cid:146) provisional security systems on rail links with the Federal Republic

From 1 January 2001, the Federal Republic of Germany will be introducing the new safety system called
(cid:145)Indusi(cid:146) on all trains circulating in the country. Praiseworthy as the measure being taken of course is, it is
going to cause many problems for the neighbouring rail networks, who will not be able to use their rolling
stock on German railway lines since they do not possess the new system.

The regional Metz to Sarrebrucken or Luxembourg to Trier rail links, like many other international rail
links, will be affected by the Federal Transport Ministry(cid:146)s refusal to extend the current authorisations
enjoyed by regional trains beyond 31 December 2000, until new rolling stock equipped with the Indusi
system is available.

In view of the above, can the Commisssion answer following:

1. Does the attitude of the German authorities, the entirely understandable safety considerations which
dictate it notwithstanding, not infringe the freedom of movement of persons and the provision of a
cross-border public rail service?

2. Does the Commission not intend to urge the German authorities to grant other railway companies a
transition period to allow them to carry out the adjustments needed to meet the new German safety
rules?

3. Does the (cid:145)Indusi(cid:146) affair not demonstrate just how necessary it is to harmonise safety and other

operating conditions within the internal market of the EU (and the applicant countries)?