WRITTEN QUESTION P-0069/01 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Compatibility of collective agreements between producers on the recycling costs of electrical and electronic equipment and scrap motor cars with European competition rules.
Date: 2001-01-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, Netherlands, competition, competition law, electrical equipment, electronic equipment, financing, motor car, restrictive trade practice, waste recycling

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/173

(2001/C 187 E/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0069/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: Compatibility of collective agreements between producers on the recycling costs of electrical and

electronic equipment and scrap motor cars with European competition rules

In its proposal for a directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment of 13 June 2000 (COM/2000/
0347) (1) the Commission requires producers and importers to set up a scheme for recycling electrical and
electronic equipment, and to meet the full cost of doing so.

The proposal for a directive has nothing to say about how arrangements for the scheme(cid:146)s financing are to
be implemented. The choice is between a scheme under which recycling costs would be met from
a common fund (collective scheme) or a scheme on an individual basis under which producers would meet
only the cost of recycling their own products. The collective scheme offers individual enterprises no
financial incentives (such as eco-design or slimmed down organisation) for minimising retrieval costs. The
individual scheme does offer financial incentives, and should consequently be preferred on economic as
well as environmental grounds.

The Netherlands is the only country to date where any such collective schemes operate. To enable
recycling both of electrical and electronic equipment and of scrap motor cars, the consumer pays a uniform
contribution per product. The Netherlands competition authority is currently seeking to establish whether
or not the scheme for electrical and electronic equipment is compatible with EU competition rules. At all
events, under the collective scheme enterprises enter into cost-sharing arrangements with each other.
Pricing agreements are in principle prohibited. In the past, the German federal cartels authority had also
prohibited the so-called (cid:145)visible fee(cid:146) with the argument that this involved a standard costs factor and that
arrangements based on it consequently were tantamount to unlawful pricing agreements. The expectation
is that the Netherlands cartels authority will also shortly rule against this collective scheme. Although both
cartel authorities cooperate closely with the European Commission(cid:146)s Competition DG, the latter has itself
still not
the Netherlands collective scheme with European
competition rules.

issued a ruling on the compatibility of

Does the Commission agree that the Netherlands collective schemes for financing the recycling of electrical
and electronic equipment and scrap motor cars are incompatible with European competition rules?

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000, p. 184.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

The pursuit of environmental objectives, such as proposed in the proposal for a Directive on waste
electrical and electronic equipment referred to by the Honourable Member, often leads to the creation of
new economic activities and markets. Community competition policy aims primarily at ensuring that these
new markets stay open and that competition can take place. In more concrete terms, the Commission
seeks to ensure that companies with environmental obligations have a real choice of alternative means of
fulfilling those obligations, so that the price paid by consumers is not excessively high. More specific
principles concerning the assessment of horizontal environmental co-operation agreements have been
recently set out in the Commission(cid:146)s notice (cid:145)Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 of the EC Treaty
to horizontal co-operation agreements(cid:146) (1). It should be stressed that the European competition rules only
apply to those restrictions of competition which may affect trade between Member States. In practice, this
issue needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis.

With respect to the two Netherlands collective schemes referred to by the Honourable Member, the
scheme relating to electrical and electronic equipment has been only notified to the Netherlands
competition authority and the Commission therefore is not examining this case. The Netherlands
competition authority is competent to apply Article 81(1) and 82 (ex Articles 85 and 86) of the

C 187 E/174

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

EC Treaty. As far as the disposal system for scrap cars is concerned, both the Netherlands competition
authority and the Commission have received a corresponding notification, which is currently being
examined. In its scrutiny of this notification the Commission applies the above-mentioned principles.
Since the Commission(cid:146)s investigation in this case is not yet completed it is not possible to indicate the
likely outcome. The Commission will not hesitate to inform the Honourable Member when the examina-
tion of the case is completed.

(1) OJ C 3, 6.1.2001.

(2001/C 187 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0074/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Credit Unions

Is the Commission aware of, or has it itself carried out any comparative studies on the existence of Credit
Unions across the EU?

Experience suggests that Credit Unions provide an invaluable service by offering loans and savings
accounts to small businesses and individuals who might otherwise be denied such services by mainstream
banks and lending organisations.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2001)

The Commission is fully aware of the importance of credit unions across the Community. This term covers
both those organisations (credit unions proper) which are organised essentially on a local basis and provide
savings and credit facilities to the individuals who are members, and those organisations more generally
known as mutual guarantee societies (MGS) which provide access to credit
facilities for the small
businesses which belong to them. Credit unions are normally, and MGS often, organised along co-
operative lines. In both cases their major purpose is to facilitate access to credit for their members, to be
used in the case of credit unions normally for expenditure on private consumption, and in the case of
MGS for business investment. Exceptionally, the same organisation may carry out both functions.

Regulatory requirements and traditions regarding both credit unions and MGSs, and the concept of risk-
sharing in general, differ widely across the Member States, as does public support for their development.

Credit unions proper are particularly established in the United Kingdom, for example, where they fall
under the Credit Unions Act of 1979. These unions specialise in the provision of finance to low income
consumers and their objectives under the Act include: the promotion of thrift among members; the
creation of sources of credit for members at a fair and reasonable rate of interest; the use and control of
members(cid:146) savings for their mutual benefit; the training and education of the members in the wise use of
money and in the management of their financial affairs. No Community directives yet apply to these
institutions. Credit unions in Ireland and the United Kingdom are exempt from the prudential regulations
that apply to other credit institutions that are eligible to receive deposits from the public, although in both
of these jurisdictions there are national supervision regimes that apply.

MGSs are sometimes established by small businesses or their representatives together with financial
intermediaries, such as banks. They facilitate access to loan finance by offering guarantees to lenders,
thus helping to address the fact that a large number of small businesses are undercapitalised, and banks
can be reluctant to give loans to them as also launched several smaller comparative studies some years ago.

In order to increase awareness of mutual guarantee schemes, the Commission, following a call
for
proposals, has selected the European Mutual Guarantee scheme (AECM) to organise several conferences
in the Member States, including those Member States where such schemes are underdeveloped.