WRITTEN QUESTION E-1097/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Violation of European Treaties by UEFA rules.
Date: 2001-04-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, competition, professional sport, sporting event, sports body

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/169

We are not as yet in possession of any further information. What will the effects of this be on the Austrian
market, Austrian manufacturers and Austrian consumers?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2001)

The regulations in the Community on the use of the Citizens Band (CB) have not been harmonised and
vary amongst Member States both in the amount of allocated channels and on the modulation techniques,
which are allowed in the frequency band.

The Commission is of the opinion, that the changes in the regulations in the Netherlands will not have
negative consequences for Austrian citizens or manufacturers. The regulations have become less restrictive
on the modulation techniques that are allowed implying that Austrian manufacturers can continue to
market
for
equipment with Amplitude Modulation (AM) and Single Side Band (SSB) modulation. Austrian visitors can
continue to use their CB equipment in the Netherlands under the same conditions as before.

their products in the Netherlands without modification and will have a larger market

The Commission is aware of the fact, that Austria does not allow SSB transmissions in the CB band and
might fear increased interference from Dutch citizens travelling to Austria and using their CB equipment in
SSB mode. This risk exists but is not unique to equipment designed for operation in the frequency
spectrum of the Netherlands. Such interference can also be caused by equipment designed for spectrums of
other Member States, which are not compatible with the Austrian frequency spectrum. As an example it is
probably known to the Honourable Member that Germany has allocated 40 channels to the CB which are
not available in Austria, whereas SSB is also allowed in some other Member States.

The use of SSB or the operation in non-allocated frequency bands in Austria would be illegal. Since
tourists can travel into Austria without being checked at the borders, it is impossible to physically prevent
CB equipment from entering Austria. It is imperative that users are informed of any restrictions of use of
their CB equipment within the Community. The attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to
Directive 1999/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and
telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (1), which obliges
manufacturers to inform users of such restrictions on the packaging and in the users manual. These
provisions will limit the illegal use of CB equipment in Austria.

Only by harmonising the use of the radio frequency spectrum in and beyond the Community can these
problems be completely avoided. The Commission has brought the issue of CB to the attention of the
Member States and to the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications administrations (CEPT),
which are responsible for taking decisions on the harmonisation of the use of radio frequencies. However,
the CEPT, which comprises the Member States and 27 other European countries, has not concluded on the
matter. Subject to the adoption of the Commission(cid:146)s proposal for a Radio Spectrum Decision (2), which is
currently under negotiation in the Council and in the European Parliament, further Community action on
the issue can be considered.

(1) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.
(2) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.

(2001/C 340 E/194)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1097/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Violation of European Treaties by UEFA rules

The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) prohibits clubs which are financially linked from
playing against each other in UEFA matches (the cup-winners(cid:146) cup and champions(cid:146) league). Ajax and
Germinal Beerschot Antwerp are likely to become the first victims of this ban. On Tuesday, 16 May 2000
the Dutch club bought a majority holding of 51 % in the Antwerp club.

C 340 E/170

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

In answer to Question P-0357/01 (1), the Commission refers to the rules governing (cid:145)the integrity of UEFA
competitions for club teams: clubs(cid:146) independence(cid:146), approved by UEFA in 1998, which according to UEFA
itself are intended to protect the sporting integrity of club competitions. The Commission is currently
investigating whether or not this measure falls outside the ban instituted by Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty.
The Commission says that no final position has yet been adopted.

Has the Commission now adopted a final position on the rules governing (cid:145)the integrity of UEFA
independence(cid:146), approved by UEFA in 1998? If so, what is the

1.
competitions for club teams: clubs(cid:146)
Commission(cid:146)s final position? If not, when will the Commission announce its final position?

2.
On what legal grounds does the Commission assert that the rules governing (cid:145)the integrity of UEFA
competitions for club teams: clubs(cid:146) independence(cid:146), approved by UEFA in 1998, either do or do not comply
with Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 185.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2001)

The Commission refers to its reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question P-0357/01.

The Commission has not yet adopted a definitive position on the Union of European Football Associations
(UEFA) rules governing (cid:145)the protection of integrity of the UEFA club competitions(cid:146).

The Commission will publicly announce its definitive position as soon as possible.

(2001/C 340 E/195)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1101/01

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: The need for a level playing field in the road haulage industry

Given that UK HGVs are subject to safety checks every six weeks, why are vehicles registered in Northern
Ireland (part of the UK) and other Member States in the EU only subjecting their vehicles to equivalent
checks every six months or less?

Why are vehicles weighed before they board ferries sailing from the UK (to avoid overloading), but not
when sailing to the UK from ports such as Calais? Is this lack of checks prejudicing the safety of ships,
crew and passengers?

In the UK, every tachograph is subject to regular and rigorous checks, in contrast to the practice in some
other Member States where they are subject to random checks (for example Germany). What measures are
planned to address this serious anomaly?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2001)

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member concern about safety and fair competition in road
haulage. For this reason there are a number of Community Directives that apply to the road haulage
sectors in all Member States. These Directives require vehicles and their equipment to be checked on
a regular basis, but Member States may establish more onerous regimes for their own registered vehicles.
Consequently, the United Kingdom or any other Member State could check the roadworthiness condition
of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) or inspect the tachograph more frequently than the minimum required in
the Directives.