WRITTEN QUESTION E-1363/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission. The beer tie.
Date: 2001-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: beer, commercial contract, non-competition clause, supplier, trade policy

C 340 E/222

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

leaders do not seem aware of the
and of unrest spreading to the whole continent. Nigeria(cid:146)s political
seriousness of the country(cid:146)s political situation when they try to entice international investments into the
country. It seems that at present the EU is the only actor on the international scene strong enough to force
Nigeria(cid:146)s political leaders to tackle this problem decisively, and seek a solution.

What does the EU intend to do to remedy the serious situation in Nigeria? Does the EU intend to take the
situation in Nigeria in account in its policies on business investments and trade?

Reply

(20 July 2001)

The European Union maintains a close and regular political dialogue with Nigeria, with a view to
strengthen the existing process in the country towards a consolidation of democracy and the respect for
human rights. The EU thereby endeavours to follow a constructive approach, welcoming the achievements
of the Nigerian authorities to date, while encouraging them to make progress in areas where they still face
considerable challenges. Notwithstanding this positive and constructive approach towards Nigeria, the
Council has publicly stated its position in cases of human rights violations, whenever appropriate. For
instance, on 30 January 2001 the Presidency issued a declaration on behalf of the European Union on
corporal punishment in Zamfara State, Nigeria.

With regard to investment and trade, the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention is drawn to the EU Common
Position on Nigeria, adopted by the Council on 14 May 2001. In this Common Position, the EU sets out
its overall policy on Nigeria, including on the link between the consolidation of democracy and the socio-
economic development of the country.

(2001/C 340 E/257)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1363/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: The (cid:145)beer tie(cid:146)

Following the recent opinion of the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice in the case of
Crehan v. Courage (C-453/99), what is the Commission(cid:146)s current view of the (cid:145)beer tie(cid:146) whereby pub
tenants are obliged to buy their beer from a supplier nominated by the company owning the pub?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2001)

The Commission(cid:146)s current policy on beer ties is set out in the new general Block Exemption Regulation on
Vertical Agreements (1), together with the associated Guidelines on Vertical Restraints (2). The new Block
Exemption applies to contracts signed since 1 June 2000. In brief, it states that suppliers whose market
share does not exceed 30 % may impose a non-compete obligation ((cid:145)tie(cid:146)) on their buyer for as long as the
buyer occupies the supplier(cid:146)s premises. Where the buyer does not occupy the supplier(cid:146)s premises, the
maximum duration for ties is five years.

The Commission or national competition authorities may withdraw the benefit of the Block Exemption
where particular agreements have effects which are incompatible with the conditions of Article 81(3) (ex-
Article 85) of the EC Treaty, for example where markets are foreclosed by parallel networks of tying
agreements. The Commission may also disapply the Block Exemption in relation to an entire sector where
parallel networks cover more than 50 % of the relevant market.

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/223

The Block Exemption does not apply to suppliers with more than 30 % market share. Their ties are
assessed in accordance with the detailed guidance provided by the Guidelines on Vertical Restraints. The
Commission encourages suppliers to make their own assessment using these Guidelines. Relevant factors
are the supplier(cid:146)s market share,
its tied market share, the duration of the tie, the market power of
competing suppliers, the existence of entry barriers and the total share of the market which is tied.

Where an assessment under the Guidelines leads to the conclusion that a supplier(cid:146)s ties are likely to
produce appreciable anti-competitive effects (whether alone or together with similar ties operated by other
suppliers), the Guidelines go on to describe the types of efficiencies which may justify an individual
exemption under Article 81(3). The Guidelines stress that exemption is not available to dominant
undertakings.

tying agreements,

In general terms, the new Block Exemption and Guidelines adopt an economic approach. They recognise
that
like other forms of vertical restrictions, can have positive effects and that
competition concerns generally only arise where the supplier has some degree of market power or where
access to markets is made difficult by networks of similar agreements.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the

EC Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ L 336, 29.12.1999).

(2) Commission Notice (OJ C 291, 13.10.2000).

(2001/C 340 E/258)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1382/01

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Consolidation procedure in (cid:145)Tr(cid:246)polach(cid:146)

A land consolidation procedure has been initiated in Tr(cid:246)polach (Corinthia). Two-thirds of the landowners
were in agreement with this procedure. Mr Wastl, who owns one of the properties affected by the
consolidation, has not agreed to it. However, on the basis of the two-thirds majority, the holdings are now
being amalgamated.

Is this procedure compatible with EU law?

If so, on the basis of which provisions?

If not, what legal action can be taken to oppose it?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

The Commission is of the view that the manner in which a unification of parcels is to be carried out is
a matter governed by national law provisions and it is incumbent to the appropriate domestic courts or
administrative bodies to handle any disputes related thereto.