WRITTEN QUESTION E-0397/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Criticism of exclusive dealership arrangements in the automobile sector.
Date: 2001-02-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: concessionaire, free competition, motor vehicle industry, trade mark

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/197

Contrary to the legislators(cid:146) intentions, the secretariat and organisation of the Aristeion Prizes was provided
each year by that particular year(cid:146)s European City of Culture, in collaboration with the Commission. This
rotational system did not help to give the Prizes the high profile that had been hoped for and in fact
engendered differences in management and organisational shortcomings that prevented the Prizes from
becoming well-known. Furthermore, with the enlargement of the Community to 15 Member States, the
participation of the EFTA countries and the applicant countries in the cultural programmes and, as from
2000, the nomination of several European Cities of Culture at a time, the system of organisation of these
Prizes became obsolete.

Accordingly, once the (cid:145)Ariane(cid:146) programme ended the Aristeion Prizes were abolished.

At present the Community, through the (cid:145)Culture 2000(cid:146) programme, which is the single financing and
programming instrument for cultural cooperation, provides for the awarding of grants for (cid:145)Special cultural
events with a European or international dimension(cid:146), including European prizes in the various cultural
spheres: literature, translation, architecture, etc. In other words, instead of having the Commission organise
prizes, which accords neither with the spirit of the programme nor with the principle of subsidiarity, the
Council and Parliament, in the Decision establishing the (cid:145)Culture 2000(cid:146) programme, have opted instead to
encourage initiatives which correspond to the real needs of the different artistic sectors, and which above
all are promoted and organised by professionals in the sphere of culture.

In 2000, for example, in connection with the implementation of the programme, the Commission chose
the Mies van der Rohe Foundation for the creation of an EU contemporary architecture prize. Similar
initiatives may be launched in future financial years for the creation of other cultural prizes, including
in accordance with Decision 508/2000/EC (3) establishing the (cid:145)Culture 2000(cid:146) pro-
prizes for literature,
gramme.

(1) Resolution of 18 May 1989 (OJ C 183, 20.7.1989).
(2) OJ L 291, 24.10.1997.
(3) OJ L 63, 10.3.2000.

(2001/C 235 E/232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0397/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Criticism of exclusive dealership arrangements in the automobile sector

At the recent international conference on the automobile industry held in Madrid, extensive criticism was
levelled at the current vehicle distribution system, which gives too great a role to suppliers in the
production line. Arguments were also put forward for a distribution system which would abolish the
requirement for exclusive dealerships for individual car makes, unlike the system in force at present, and
which would encourage free competition in the market.

Does the Commission believe that the existing distribution system in the automobile sector in the
European Union is a barrier to free competition in the Community market? What arguments can the
Commission bring to bear in favour of the new system proposed for this sector?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2001)

The current Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 (1) applicable to motor vehicle distribution and
servicing agreements expiring on 30 September 2002, grants to the industry a block exemption from
Community competition rules. In contrast to what may have been said to the Honourable Member, car
manufacturers are obliged to allow their dealers to sell more than one brand, provided that dealers respect
certain strict conditions specified in that Regulation (2).

C 235 E/198

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

The Commission adopted on 15 November 2000 a report evaluating the application of this Regulation,
and organised a hearing on this issue for all interested parties on 13-14 February 2001 (3). This report is
a factual analysis of the current regulatory regime. It will form an essential basis for the forthcoming
discussion about the future regulatory framework for motor vehicle distribution and servicing during
which the adequacy of the current conditions imposed on the dealers who want to sell more than one
brand will have to be closely examined.

As to the question of effective competition in the motor vehicle industry, the Commission refers the
Honourable Member to its reply to his Written Question E-4003/00 (4).

(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.
(2) See Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 which provides that a dealer can be obliged (cid:145)not to sell new motor
vehicles offered by persons other than the manufacturer except on separate sales premises, under separate
management in the form of a distinct legal entity and in a manner which avoids confusion between makes(cid:146).
(3) See IP/00/1306 of 15 November 2000 concerning the adoption of the Report and IP/01/204 of 14 February 2001

concerning the hearing. The Report itself is available on the Competition Directorate-general(cid:146)s website:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/car sector, where also other valuable information can be found.

(4) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001.

(2001/C 235 E/233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0404/01

by Johannes Blokland (EDD), Michiel van Hulten (PSE)
and Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: European decision on an emergency recovery plan for cod stocks in the North Sea (14 February (cid:129)

1 May)

Is the Commission aware that, in view of the opinion of the International Council for the Exploration of
the Sea, the proposed measure will result not in a reduction in the pressure from fishing but only in a shift?
Has the Commission carried out an estimate of the damage that will be done to fish stocks and ecosystems
in the regions which will have to cope with greater pressure? If so, what will the damage be? If not, why
not?

Was the Commission(cid:146)s choice of protection zone determined solely by the reported cod catches of
a number of fishing fleets in 1999? Did the Commission also take account of the fact that this measure
will protect only a small part of the historical spawning areas of cod? If so, why is the emergency measure
limited only to the proposed fishing grounds? If not, why not?

The spawning season of cod in the Southern North Sea is between January and March (information from
CEFAS). Does the Commission not think that the emergency plan for this zone is starting too late
(14 February 2001) and going on too long (1 May 2001)?

The Dutch deputy minister, Mrs G.H. Faber, has put forward two alternatives: a temporary suspension of
all cod-related fishing and a temporary halt to Dutch fishing, both of which would significantly reduce the
pressure. Both alternatives have been rejected by the Commission. Why?

Does the Commission expect the emergency plan to form a key element in its long-term recovery plan?

Does the Commission regard it as politically acceptable for the fishing fleet of one Member State to be
substantially disadvantaged compared with the fishing fleets of other Member States which, in terms of
their quota, bear a greater responsibility for the cod catch?

Does the Commission believe that the Dutch fisheries sector should be eligible for compensatory measures,
now that estimates of its losses are running at € 40 million? If so, in what way? If not, why not?