WRITTEN QUESTION E-1178/01 by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Scrutiny for compatibility with competition law of the merger between the IVG and Hochtief Consortia for the construction of the Berlin Brandenburg International Airport (BBI).
Date: 2001-04-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, airport, award of contract, competition law, economic concentration

C 350 E/86

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

(2001/C 350 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1170/01

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: World-wide genocide of Christians

The United Nations and several human rights organisations have recently sounded the alarm over the
in 2000, 165 000 were killed and 200 million
increase in persecutions of Christians world-wide:
persecuted.

Europe, which still bears unhealed scars from the shame of the Holocaust, has a duty to take action to
guarantee the right to freedom of religion.

What initiatives does the Commission intend to take to safeguard and guarantee freedom of religion (cid:129) to
which everyone has a right (cid:129) in Europe and the rest of the world?

How does the Commission plan to act to stem these cases of intolerance and religious discrimination and
to protect laymen and missionaries at work, as they daily put their lives at risk?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The Union condemns all forms of discrimination and intolerance based on religion or belief, a point which
it underlined at the 57th United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights in Geneva this year. This
stance was reflected, inter alia, in the support offered by Member States for the resolution introduced by
Ireland on the Elimination of All Forms of Religious Intolerance and in the Union Statement on Civil and
Political Rights which condemned all forms of discrimination and intolerance based on religion or belief.
The Union also calls on all Governments to ensure that their domestic legal systems provide effective
guarantees for the exercise of the freedom of religion and belief to all without any discrimination. It
supports the continuing efforts of the Special Rapporteur to examine incidents in all countries that are
incompatible with the relevant international standards, in particular the Declaration on the Elimination of
All Forms of Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief.

The Commission, which played an active role in Geneva, fully supports the importance attached to
freedom of religion. Activities to promote and defend this freedom in third countries are eligible for
support under the European initiative for Democracy and Human Rights.

Article 10 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights also emphasises the importance of
freedom of religion.

The European Union raises and will continue to raise religious freedom in its various dialogues with third
countries where this is appropriate.

(2001/C 350 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1178/01

by Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Scrutiny for compatibility with competition law of the merger between the IVG and Hochtief

Consortia for the construction of the Berlin Brandenburg International Airport (BBI)

On 5 February 2001, the European Commission authorised Hochtief and IVG, which had previously been
competitors, to submit a joint tender for the construction of the planned Berlin Brandenburg International
Airport (BBI). In the opinion, reported in the media, of the Directorate-General for Competition, the

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/87

project in its proposed form would not lead to any restriction of competitive positions among European
airports. However, the opinion apparently expressly leaves open the issue as to whether the entire
tendering procedure for the construction and operation of the BBI was actually valid in law.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What was the actual substance of the application made to the European Commission by the IVG and
Hochtief Consortia for its merger for the construction and operation of the BBI to be scrutinised for
its compatibility with competition law?

2. Which individual aspects of the merger did the Commission scrutinise on the basis of that application?

3. What was the actual outcome of the scrutiny notified by the Commission to the aforementioned

applicants on 5 February 2001?

4. Were any specific issues in the merger between IVG and Hochtief not scrutinised before the
Commission took its decision on 5 February 2001? If so, which issues were not scrutinised, and why
not?

5. When the Commission scrutinised the merger between IVG and Hochtief for its compatibility with
competition law, was any account taken of the infringements in the tendering procedure for the
privatisation of Berlin Brandenburg Airport Holding and the construction of the BBI which were
established by the Brandenburg Higher Regional Court by decision of 3 August 1999? If so, from
what angle? If not, why was no account taken of the legality of the tendering procedure referred to
above when the Commission took its decision on 5 February 2001?

6. Does the Commission(cid:146)s decision of 5 February 2001 include any restrictions on or requirements of

the bidders? If so, what are they?

7. Does the Commission(cid:146)s decision of 5 February 2001 include any provisos on the basis of which
authorisation was granted for the joint construction and joint operation of the BBI by the IVG and
Hochtief Consortia?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

1.
On 22 December 2000 IVG Holding AG (IVG) and Hochtief AirPort GmbH (HTA) notified pursuant
to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of
concentrations between undertakings (1) (the Merger Regulation) their proposal to acquire joint control of
Berlin Brandenburg Flughafen Holding GmbH (BBF). BBF is charged with operating the commercial airport
system in the Berlin/Brandenburg region and with developing the system in future. Berlin(cid:146)s three existing
commercial airports at Tegel, Tempelhof and Sch(cid:246)nefeld are operated by wholly owned subsidiaries of
BBF. BBF is to construct and operate the future Berlin Brandenburg International Airport (the BBI). This is
a compulsory application according to the said Regulation, on the basis of which the Commission has to
examine whether the concentration is compatible with the Common Market. Such examination must be
based on the criteria laid down in Article 2 of the said Regulation (see answer to the following question).

The Commission examined under Article 2 of the Merger Regulation whether the merger created or
2.
strengthened a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly
impeded in the common market or in a substantial part of it, or whether the acquisition by IVG and HTA
of joint control of the BBI has as its object or effect the coordination of the competitive behaviour of
undertakings which remain independent. In so doing it assessed the merger(cid:146)s impact on the various
markets for the operation of airports on which IVG, HTA and the BBI are directly or indirectly active
through shareholdings.

Further details can be obtained from the Commission decision of 5 February 2001, available on the
Internet at www.europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases.

C 350 E/88

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

In its decision of 5 February 2001 the Commission declared the merger compatible with the

3.
common market under Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

4.
In its decision the Commission considered all aspects of the merger within the meaning of the
Merger Regulation (cid:129) that is to say of the acquisition of joint control by IVG and HTA of the BBI (cid:129) in the
light of the Regulation.

5.
In the proceedings under the Merger Regulation the Commission did not consider the legality of the
tendering procedure which took place prior to the merger. It was not empowered to do so under the
Regulation, the sole purpose of the merger control procedure being, as already indicated, to determine
whether a merger would have one of the effects mentioned in Article 2 of the Merger Regulation (see
answer to the second question). The question of the legality of the tendering procedure falls to be decided
solely in accordance with the relevant public procurement or antitrust provisions, the application of which
is a matter first and foremost for the competent national authorities and courts.

6.
Since the merger as notified did not give rise to any serious doubts as to its compatibility with the
common market, the Commission declared it compatible with the common market under Article 6(1)(b) of
the Merger Regulation without attaching any conditions or obligations.

7.

No (see the answer to question No 6).

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989.

(2001/C 350 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1190/01

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: European Social Fund and the Valencia region

(19 April 2001)

In the course of this week, contradictory information has emerged from the Valencia region regarding the
administration of
for the running of
the subsidies provided by the Valencia Regional Government
vocational training courses by approved partner training centres.

During the 2000 financial year the regional government had to pay back 687 million pesetas to the ESF
whilst at the same time many partner bodies and organisations had to abandon courses which had already
been scheduled, since the regional authority was unable to monitor them and check that they met the
required standards.

In the local press there have been reports concerning a former (1995/6) Director-General of Employment
within the Valencia Regional Government (cid:129) JosØ Linfante Vidal (cid:129) who was responsible for such training
initiatives during his time in office and who now runs businesses in the vocational training sector, the
basic activity of which is involvement in programmes co-financed by the European Social Fund. Their
services range from advising on the running of vocational training projects to the teaching of, for example,
courses providing an introduction to new information and communication technologies. Mr Linfante
Vidal(cid:146)s case would appear to be somewhat unethical since some of the schools which he runs have
doubled their revenue since 1995.

Within the Valencia Regional Parliament, questions have been asked regarding the identity of
the
companies and public bodies which have received subsidies, the value of those subsidies, the number of
students enrolled and the degree of success achieved by former students in finding jobs. No answers have
so far been forthcoming.

Is the Commission aware of these facts? To what extent do they affect the beneficiaries of the ESF?

In what way does the Commission work with the Member States(cid:146) authorities in order to meet the needs of
an Objective 1 region, pursuant to the regulations applicable?

Is the Commission intending to take any action regarding the administration of ESF funds in the Valencia
region?