WRITTEN QUESTION P-0874/01 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission. Swarovski binoculars.
Date: 2001-03-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, commercial law, competition, dominant position, optics, refusal to sell, selling price

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/211

(2001/C 261 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0874/01

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Swarovski binoculars

Is it in keeping with the Treaty for a manufacturer (the firm of Swarovski
in Tyrol, Austria) and/or
Swarovski(cid:146)s wholesaler not to supply or to refuse to supply a retailer (the firm of Saalberger in Carinthia,
Austria) with its products (binoculars)? The reason given so far by Swarovski and/or its wholesaler is
Saalberger(cid:146)s excessively low retail price.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

It is not possible for the Commission to take a position on the question on the basis of the information it
contains. A refusal to supply, even when the reason given is the retailer(cid:146)s excessively low retail price, does
not in itself constitute an infringement of Article 81 (formerly Article 85) of the EC Treaty, provided that
there is no anti-competitive agreement or concerted behaviour between firms which appreciably restricts
competition. It may be that a refusal to supply on the ground that the retail price is too low constitutes an
abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 (formerly Article 86) of the EC Treaty. If
this were the case, the manufacturer or supplier concerned would have to be in a dominant position on
the relevant market. Furthermore, the provisions mentioned apply only if the measures are such as to
affect trade between the Member States to an appreciable extent. If appropriate, the party concerned may
apply to the Commission with more precise information.

(2001/C 261 E/241)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0875/01

by Hans-Peter Mayer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Law governing the award of public contracts

(13 March 2001)

The municipality of G concludes with undertaking D a buildings management contract (general contrac-
tor(cid:146)s agreement), also known as a (cid:145)caretaking contract(cid:146). No public invitation to tenders was issued in
respect of this contract because the municipality of G claims that it is impossible to draw up a detailed,
comprehensive requirements specification. The contract is for work by skilled tradesmen and services to be
performed in the field of space management (in other words, it is not development planning but the
management of premises within municipality buildings), asset management and maintenance management
(in other words, public works).

The total amount of the contract is not known: it might be more or less than € 200 000.

The general contractor or facility management undertaking is using external subcontractors and its own
undertakings to perform the contract and is not issuing public invitations to tender for the individual
contracts.

It is claimed that the facility management contractor (the general contractor) has no need to issue public
invitations to tender because they are private undertakings, and that negotiations can be held with
subcontractors before and after the contract is concluded.

The aim of the municipality of G in so doing is inter alia to keep as many contracts as possible within the
remit of the municipality.

The trade associations and chambers of trade regard this conduct as a breach of the EU directives on the
award of public contracts and consider that it renders meaningless the German VOB (Verdingungsordnung
f(cid:252)r Bauleistungen (cid:129) contracting rules for the award of public works contracts) and VOL (Verdingungsord-
nung f(cid:252)r Leistungen (cid:129) contracting rules for the award of public supply contracts) adopted under
implementing regulations by the ministers of the L(cid:228)nder.