WRITTEN QUESTION E-1249/01 by Per Stenmarck (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Competition.
Date: 2001-04-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, carriage of goods, competition law, infringement of EU law, rail transport

C 340 E/204

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

knowledge acquired by a central bank in its day-to-day dealings with the banking system enhances its
effectiveness as a financial supervisor. On the other side, it is argued that responsibility for the smooth
functioning of the financial system (including the possible need to provide emergency lending assistance)
risks interfering with the central bank(cid:146)s freedom of action in the conduct of monetary policy.

The fact that the two models (cid:129) supervision independent from the central bank and supervision within the
central bank (cid:129) are represented in the Community, suggests that the arguments for or against either model
are not conclusive. Nevertheless, it is the case that the introduction of the euro, combined with processes
of globalisation, technological change and deregulation, is leading to rapid and on-going changes in the
financial markets. As a result, the supervisory framework must be kept under constant review to ensure
that it remains appropriate.

In this context, two reports have been made by the Economic and Finance Committee to Finance Ministers
over the last year (cid:129) the first on crisis prevention and the second on crisis management. Both reports have
stressed that, while the existing institutional arrangements have served well, the practical functioning of
those arrangements must be enhanced. A series of recommendations have been made to that effect. Many
of these relate to the need for improved co-ordination and exchange of information among the relevant
authorities (central banks, Ministries, and supervisory authorities) at cross-sectoral, national, and European
levels.

Priority must now be given to ensuring that these recommendations are implemented.

In the longer-term, however, a more far-reaching rationalisation of current arrangements may be
necessary. Without pre-judging the model of supervision which may ultimately prove desirable, the issue
of whether the stability of an integrated Community financial system can best be assured by having a single
forum, rather than several, for co-ordination and information exchange must be studied carefully.

(2001/C 340 E/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1249/01

by Per Stenmarck (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Competition

A major threat to competition and diversity currently exists in the field of goods transport. Many large,
state-owned firms such as Deutsche Bahn and the SNCF compete on deregulated markets in other
countries, with the aid of state funds. This results in a distortion of competition because other firms cannot
compete under the same conditions. What does the Commission plan to do to prevent this distortion?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2001)

The recently adopted Directive 2001/12/EC (1) is aimed at developing competition in the rail sector, in
particular for goods transport. This Directive, which is still to be implemented by the Member States,
freight and
requires amongst others that railway undertakings shall keep separate accounts for rail
passenger services. I also makes it clear that public funds paid for public service activities may not be
transferred to activities relating to any other transport service or any other activity.
In addition to
legislative measures the Commission is also making use of the competition law, in particular state aid rules
as a mean to enhance competition in the rail sector.

As regards the application of European competition law (e.g. rules on antitrust and state aid)
the
Commission is actively pursuing a number of cases based on either complaints or ex-officio procedures.
Although the Commission is not challenging the legal and factual possibilities for publicly owned
enterprises to invest and expand commercially it will, under these rules, have to satisfy itself that when

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/205

such an undertaking engages in further economic activities, state funds earmarked for, inter alia, public
services, restructuring or infrastructure investments is not used to unfairly fund aggresive commercial
activities on markets open to competition.

Accordingly, the Commission is further certainly ready to look with the necessary diligence into issues like
the one the Honourable Member mentions provided that substantiated information on potential
infringements of competition rules is put at its disposal.

(1) Directive 2001/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive

91/440/EEC on the development of the Community(cid:146)s railways (OJ L 75, 15.3.2001).

(2001/C 340 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1253/01

by Mar(cid:237)a Sornosa Mart(cid:237)nez (PSE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Failure to comply with the Habitats Directive in the case of Posidonia oceanica in Valencia (Spain)

The Government of the Community of Valencia (the Generalitat) has already put forward its official
proposal for sites of Community interest for the Natura 2000 network. In the proposal the Generalitat has
omitted most of the feeding-grounds of Posidonia oceanica in Valencia. Although a few are included off
the Alicante coast, the proposal does not consider of interest major expanses of this marine plant in the
provinces of Valencia and Castell(cid:243)n.

In its representations to the Spanish National Hydrological Plan (PHN) the WWF/ADENA organisation
submitted a document (also sent to the Commission) drawing attention to the danger that many of the 71
areas eligible for declaration as sites of Community interest would not be taken into account by the
Spanish authorities when designating Natura 2000 areas. I myself had occasion to inform Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m (1)
that the process had not only already begun in Spain but was also likely to be based on the content of the
present PHN.

Now action by the Valencian Government in the case of Posidonia oceanica has confirmed the situation as
stated.

Bearing in mind that Annex I of the Habitats Directive, 92/43/EC (2), includes (cid:145)Posidonia beds(cid:146) as (cid:145)natural
habitat types of Community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of
conservation(cid:146), and that the Commission has taken legal action against Spain for its scanty designation of
special areas of conservation for birds,

Does the Commission not agree that there has been a clear violation of the Habitats and Birds Directives
by the Valencian Government in the case of the Posidonia beds?

What steps will the Commission be taking to require Spain to protect its Posidonia beds?

In what way does the Commission intend to influence the Spanish PHN to prevent situations such as that
described above and so ensure that no damage is done to any site eligible for designation as a site of
Community interest for the Natura 2000 network?

(1) Question Time, February 2001 part-session.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.