WRITTEN QUESTION P-0118/01 by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission. Right to reimbursement of illegally paid interest on loan contracts in Italy.
Date: 2001-01-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, Italy, consumer protection, credit, credit institution, interest

C 187 E/190

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

An additional proposal to the Council amending Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on
the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (2) will
also be presented aimed at
introducing a harmonized system for the
authorization of transporters in the Community and determining a precise definition of animals unfit for
transport. Additional measures for the protection of horses will also be introduced. Following the outcome
of a new opinion of the Scientific Committee on Animal Welfare, expected for the end of 2001,
a redefinition of travelling times and loading densities may be proposed, taking into account any new
scientific evidence.

improving the (cid:145)route plan(cid:146),

Member States(cid:146) compliance with the Community Directives is a key element for success. To verify this, the
Commission will closely follow the situation and react, when and where appropriate,
if the level of
enforcement of Community legislation has not improved. It must be emphasised, however, that Member
States must accept their obligations to ensure that animals are treated in a humane manner. Such
acceptance would be the single most positive measure leading to improved standards.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 411/98 of 16 February 1998 on additional animal protection standards applicable to

road vehicles used for the carriage of livestock on journeys exceeding 8 hours (OJ L 52, 21.2.1998).

(2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2001/C 187 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0118/01

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: Right to reimbursement of illegally paid interest on loan contracts in Italy

Law No 108 of 7 March 1996 set down a threshold above which interest rates are deemed to be usurious.
This law also determined the procedures for calculating this threshold, which are based on a calculation of
the actual overall average rate for each quarter with reference to the figures for the previous quarter.

Credit institutions do not seem to have complied with this requirement when fixing interest rates for loans
taken out after the date of entry into force of the abovementioned law.

On 17 November 2000 the Court of Appeal ruled that all loans with interest rates higher than those laid
down in the law were illegal and therefore subject to cancellation, regardless of the date of the contract.
This means that even loans concluded before the entry into force of the law are subject to this ruling.

Subsequently, the Italian Government introduced a decree establishing that the valid interest rate for loans
should be that set at the time of the contract, thereby excluding the possibility of repayment of sums
unduly paid prior to the entry into force of the law. The decree also stipulates that interest illegally paid
after April 1997, the date of entry into force of the law in question, should not be repaid by banking
institutes.

Finally, the decree stipulates that all fixed-rate loans still active on 2 January 2001 with rates higher than
those permitted under the law should be automatically renegotiated at a rate calculated on the basis of the
annual average rate for long-term treasury bonds over the last 25 years.

Will the Commission say:

1. Whether the information set out above is accurate?

2.

If so, is the approach adopted by the government not tantamount to protecting a (cid:145)cartel(cid:146)?

3. Does the decree issued by the Italian Government not represent a breach of Community rules on

consumer protection and access to consumer credit?

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/191

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

In the Commission(cid:146)s answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question P-4157/00 (1),
it already
informed him of the initiative it had taken regarding Italian Law No 108/96 on usury. As part of that
initiative, it wrote to the Italian Government on 16 January, requesting it to provide all the information
relevant to the appraisal of Decree-Law No 304 of 29 December 2000 in terms of Community law.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 241.

(2001/C 187 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0119/01

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Possible health risks of flavour enhancers E621 and E632 (glutamate)

There are regular reports in the media on serious health complaints (headache, rashes, dizziness and
insomnia) which may be connected with the consumption of food containing flavour enhancers. The
reports refer to E621, E631 and E632 (monosodium glutamate or vetsin).

Is the Commission aware of these reports?

Have the side-effects of these substances, as mentioned above, been taken into account in any decisions
concerning these substances? What were the conclusions concerning the side-effects?

Does the Commission intend to investigate the possible harmful effects of the substances in question or
take any action? If so, when? If not, why not?

Anwer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

Monosodium glutamate (E 621) is authorised according to the Community legislation for use in foodstuffs
in general with a maximum level of 10 gram per kilogram (g/kg); disodium and dipotassium inosinate
(E 631 and E 632) are authorised for use in seasonings and condiments according to good manufacturing
practice. These substances have undergone, as with all food additives, a safety evaluation by the Scientific
Committee on Food prior to their authorisation.

In particular, monosodium glutamate and the so-called (cid:145)Chinese restaurant syndrome(cid:146) were evaluated
within the report on adverse reactions to food and food ingredients by the Scientific Committee on Food
in 1995.

In this report, it is stated that tests on individuals who identify themselves as suffering from the (cid:145)syndrome(cid:146)
have often failed to confirm the role of monosodium glutamate as the provocative agent. Moreover, these
substances are widely distributed in all animal and plant tissues.

Therefore, the Commission sees no need to revise the legislation in force on glutamates and inosinates in
the current situation, but will, as a matter of course, keep the situation under review in the light of
scientific progress in this, as in any other area.