WRITTEN QUESTION P-1545/01 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission. Belgian ban on entry of pigeon transporter lorries.
Date: 2001-05-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, environmental risk prevention, foot-and-mouth disease, intra-EU trade, trade restriction, transport of animals

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/183

The Commission has seen no evidence of any attempt by VW to fix prices with the intention of ensuring
that VW cars purchased on the Continent cannot be imported into the United Kingdom at prices lower
than those of the British franchised dealers. The Commission has recently imposed a € 30,96 million fine
on VW for anti-competitive price-fixing practices involving the VW Passat in Germany (3). However, the
matters investigated only directly affected the United Kingdom to the extent that prices were fixed for all
purchasers, irrespective of their Member State of residence. That case did not involve the type of practice
that the Honourable Member describes.

The Honourable Member also asks about
the legal validity of a right-hand drive surcharge. The
Commission(cid:146)s Notice of 18 January 1985 concerning Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of
12 December 1984 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle
distribution and servicing agreements (4) provides that a manufacturer may charge an objectively justifiable
supplement where a car supplied to a dealer has a different specification to the corresponding model
commonly supplied within the dealer(cid:146)s contract programme. Where such a charge relates to differences
between the United Kingdom right-hand drive specification and the local specification, it is commonly
known as the right-hand drive surcharge.

The right-hand drive surcharge is generally applied to cover the greater cost of producing a right-hand
drive vehicle. Left-hand drive cars generally have lower unit production costs than equivalent right-hand
drive vehicles because they are produced in larger numbers, leading to economies of scale. It goes without
saying, however, that the additional cost should be spread over the whole right-hand drive production of
the model in question, and not just over those right-hand drive cars sold in a left-hand drive country.

The Commission notes that some car manufacturers have recently increased the amount of the right-hand
drive surcharge and is investigating the matter with a view to finding out whether the new charge is
objectively justifiable.

(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.
(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/car_sector/price_diffs/.
(3) See IP/01/760, 30 May 2001.
(4) OJ L 15, 18.1.1985, as replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95.

(2001/C 350 E/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1545/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(14 May 2001)

Subject: Belgian ban on entry of pigeon transporter lorries

Is the Commission aware that the Belgian authorities have imposed a ban on pigeon transporter lorries?

Would the Commission confirm that this action is both unacceptable and inappropriate at this time, since
there are no restrictions on pigeon transportation in the UK?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The Commission has been informed by the Belgian authorities that certain restrictions to animal
movements have been adopted in relation to the serious outbreaks of foot and mouth (FMD) disease in
certain parts of the Community.

C 350 E/184

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

These measures also included a ban on the introduction of pigeons from the United Kingdom if there was
a risk that they had been in contact with animals potentially infected by FMD.

The Commission has reviewed the situation in the framework of the Standing Veterinary Committee.

The restrictions on the movement of pigeons adopted by the Belgian authorities were lifted on 15 May
2001.

(2001/C 350 E/199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1550/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Building of a radar station on Ipsarion on the island of Thassos

The Ministry for Civil Aviation and the Ministry for Transport have decided to build a 130 m2 radar station
in a 3 000 m2. enclosure on the mountain of Ipsarion on the island of Thassos, an area protected under the
Natura 2000 network, thereby provoking complaints from the mayor of Thassos and local residents
concerning the adverse environmental
impact of the project, the threat to the continued existence of
protected plant species and the danger from electromagnetic radiation.

The local residents have registered a complaint with the public prosecutor(cid:146)s office in Kavala, alleging that
in connection with the project, a number of irregularities have occurred, such as failure to observe the
environmental regulations issued by the Prefecture, failure to obtain the necessary authorisation from the
archaeological authorities and infringement of environmental protection legislation.

In order to protect the area, which is classified as being of outstanding natural beauty, can the Commission
provide the following information:

1. Have possible alternative locations for the radar been considered?

2. Can it

investigate whether

the works being carried out on Ipsarion are in accordance with
environmental protection legislation such as Directive 92/43/EEC (1) and, if this is not the case, can it
take action to prevent the installation of the radar and have the area restored?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2001)

The Greek authorities have proposed Mount Ypsarion on Thassos as a site for inclusion in the Natura
2000 network in accordance with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Accordingly, they must see to it that the site(cid:146)s conservation
value is not compromised by activities undertaken there.

The Commission is unable to tell the Honourable Member whether alternative solutions have been
examined for the project in question, as such examination falls primarily within the jurisdiction of the
Member States. Nonetheless, in order that it may examine the reported situation properly, the Commission
would ask the Honourable Member to provide more detailed information on the project(cid:146)s potential impact
on the site.