WRITTEN QUESTION P-4157/00 by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission. Exorbitant interest rate threshold in respect of bank interest in Italy.
Date: 2001-01-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, borrowing, complaint to the Commission, interest, savings

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/241

The fact that there are differences between Member States with regard to authorisation of certain
5.
plant protection products not yet included in Annex I distorts competition. There is consequently a need
to speed up decisions on the placing of active substances on the list in Annex I. Does the Commission see
any possibility of speeding up the assessment procedure?

(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001, p. 226.
(2) OJ L 55, 29.2.2000, p. 25.
(3) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

1.
As long as no decision has been taken at Community level on the possible inclusion of an active
substance in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market, Member States have to apply the criteria of Article 4 of the Directive
when granting authorizations. The Dutch authorities can only grant such authorizations when they have
established inter alia that the plant protection product has no unacceptable influence on the environment,
when properly used and having regard to all normal conditions under which it may be used.

The Dutch authorities can apply their own criteria in this respect as long as no decision on Annex I
2.
inclusion is taken at Community level; as soon as such a decision has been taken the Dutch authorities
have to apply strictly the criteria of Annex VI of the Directive (the so-called uniform principles). For any
decision taken, the most recent scientific and technical knowledge has to be taken into account.

3.
The Commission may decide to extend the deadline of July 2003 for certain active substances, as
provided for in the Directive. The Dutch authorities will have to withdraw existing national authorizations
for all active substances for which the deadline of July 2003 is not prolonged except for those cases where
a temporary exemption is granted in the framework of essential uses, as stipulated in Article 15 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 laying down the detailed rules for the
implementation of the second and third stages of the work programme referred to in Article 8(2) of
Council Directive 91/414/EEC.

The Commission is aware of Court of justice case C-306/98 which deals with the requirements for
4.
the authorization of generic plant protection products. The opinion of the Advocate General is available
but the Court of justice has not yet given its opinion on this case. As soon as the opinion of the Court is
available, the Commission will examine whether it would have implications for the criteria to be applied
by Member States when authorizing plant protection products.

The Commission is convinced that the re-evaluation process will be accelerated as a result of the
5.
procedures adopted in Regulation (EC) No 451/2000. The Commission will
inform by July 2001 the
Parliament and Council, as provided in Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market, on the progress of the re-evaluation programme.

(2001/C 174 E/259)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4157/00

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Exorbitant interest rate threshold in respect of bank interest in Italy

In Italy, the exorbitant interest rate threshold in respect of bank interest is formally laid down each quarter
by the Bank of Italy, as provided by Law No 108/96, thereby converting a fixed interest loan into a
variable interest loan. In a recent judgment of 17 November 2000, the Italian Court of Cassation ruled that
interest above the exorbitant interest rate threshold laid down by that Law was exorbitant and therefore
unlawful and illegal. However, that judgment went further, formulating the principle that anyone who had

C 174 E/242

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

in the past charged rates of interest higher than market values had committed an unlawful act (an offence
deemed to have been committed on the date of payment of the interest), thus paving the way for the
principle propounded to become retroactive. This situation led consumers(cid:146) associations to call for the
repayment of the interest paid at higher rates on loans contracted even before the Law against Exorbitant
Interest Rates adopted in April 1996 came into force. On the other hand, the Associazione Banche Italiane
(Association of Italian Banks), which represents all the Italian credit institutions, confirmed the validity of
the conditions agreed upon initially by the contracting parties, stating in addition that the implications of
the Court of Cassation(cid:146)s judgment were untenable for many credit institutions and would necessitate a
corresponding reduction in savers(cid:146) interest on long-term funds and deposits and lead the banks to raise the
rates on new loans. The ABI therefore exerted great pressure to have Law No 108/96 amended, together
with an amnesty for unlawful acts committed by member institutions against consumers of banking
services.

Can the Commission therefore:

(cid:129) Verify whether the above statements are true?

(cid:129) Ascertain whether the past and present uniform conduct of the credit institutions can be deemed to
constitute the essential elements of an agreement between undertakings capable of distorting
competition within the Union market?

(cid:129) Examine the possibility of adopting, as part of current Community law, measures to protect the
interests of individuals and undertakings which have wrongfully paid sums of money to credit
institutions on the basis of interest rates declared unlawful because they are above the exorbitant
interest rate threshold laid down by the law?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2001)

Two complaints have been lodged with the Commission by, on the one hand, the ABI (Italian Banking
Association) and the AIBE (Italian External Banking Association) and, on the other, the European Banking
Federation regarding Italian Law No 108/96 on usury. They were registered under No 2000/5209. By
letter of 22 December 2000, the Commission called on the Italian Government to comment on this entire
matter.

The Commission is aware of the various difficulties which the provisions in question, their interpretation
or their modification can cause for Community law and it intends to gather the information necessary to
conduct a thorough investigation.

On the basis of its findings it will certainly adopt any measures which might prove necessary.

It will also take steps to ensure compliance with the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 81
(former Articles 85 and 86) of the EC Treaty, particularly in the light of the information recently made
available to it by a consumer association.

(2001/C 174 E/260)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4158/00

by W. G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Discrimination in the conclusion of mobile telephone subscriptions

People, such as Members of the European Parliament, who work a few days a week in EU Member States
other than the country in which they live, are unable to take out a subscription for a mobile telephone in
some EU Member States, Belgium for instance, because they do not have a Belgian identity card or lease.