WRITTEN QUESTION P-1815/01 by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (ELDR) to the Commission. CD prices in the European Union.
Date: 2001-06-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competition law, fixing of prices, music, prices policy, record

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/231

The Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, which is responsible for the operation
and management of this service, intends to introduce an improved version early next year.

The Office for Official Publications may be contacted for further information (1).

(1) http://eur-op.eu.int/general/en/index.htm.

(2001/C 350 E/261)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1815/01

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: CD prices in the European Union

Music CDs are an important source of income for CD producers in the European Union and should be
sold at prices which young people, who are the main buyers, can afford.

According to press reports, some music CD producers have adopted an anti-competitive pricing policy and
some of the leading companies in the music sector have obliged retailers to maintain CD prices above
a given level, thus placing an additional burden on consumers over and above the taxes already payable on
CDs.

Given the above, would the Commission:

(cid:129) not agree that it should open an formal inquiry with a view to determining whether anti-competitive

practices are being used;

(cid:129) ascertain whether the national anti-trust authorities in the various Member States are looking into the

possibility of a cartel of some kind having been set up by leading CD producers;

(cid:129) say how it intends to ensure that such products are sold in compliance with internal market rules,

with particular reference to the principle of fair competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2001)

The Commission appreciates the cultural and economic importance of the music sector but at the same
time considers that it must remain vigilant to potential restrictions of competition harmful to consumers.

In 2000, the Commission was concerned that the merger of EMI and Time Warner, and in particular the
move from five major music companies to four, would have had anti-competitive effects. The merger was
abandoned before the end of the procedure.

Earlier this year, the Commission(cid:146)s anti-trust department opened an investigation into allegations of vertical
retail price maintenance by each of the five major music companies. This investigation has not yet
concluded, but the Commission has found limited evidence of questionable activities, such as the inclusion
of minimum advertised prices in some contracts for the provision of advertising funds. Those activities
were abandoned as soon as the Commission(cid:146)s investigation began. This investigation did not examine the
possibility of horizontal price fixing activities by the record companies as the Commission has seen no
hard evidence to suggest that such activities are taking place or that further investigation is appropriate.

C 350 E/232

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

Separately, the Commission is aware of an inquiry opened by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) (cid:129) the
British competition authority (cid:129) into allegations that the major music companies are taking steps to
restrain parallel imports of CDs into the United Kingdom. The effect of such restrictions would be to
maintain artificially high prices for CDs in the United Kingdom. The Commission and the OFT are in
regular contacts on this issue.

The Commission believes that its active examination of the music sector is necessary given the highly
concentrated nature of the music market, and the benefits that competition can have for consumers. The
Commission will open further investigations if evidence emerges of competition law concerns.

(2001/C 350 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1824/01

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 June 2001)

Subject: Decision-making and constructive abstention in defence matters

Title V, Article 23 of the Treaty of Amsterdam [Treaty on European Union] states that (cid:145)Decisions under
this Title shall be taken by the Council acting unanimously.(cid:146) This article also enshrines the principle of
(cid:145)constructive abstention(cid:146). How does the Commission interpret this passage? Can the Treaty be interpreted
as meaning that even a single Member State may (cid:129) in accordance with the requirement for unanimity (cid:129)
prevent the deployment of the Crisis Management Force for particular duties if it votes against the decision
and does not favour abstaining from taking a decision?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Theoretically, the unanimity rule does indeed mean that a single Member State could block a Council
decision. However, constructive abstention was introduced into the Treaty expressly to prevent such
stalemates. Any member of the Council abstaining is not obliged to apply the decision, but must accept
that the decision commits the Union. In a spirit of mutual solidarity, the Member State concerned refrains
from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision and the other
Member States respect its position.

(2001/C 350 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1834/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 June 2001)

Subject: Toxic substances in ship paint

Recent analyses carried out by Greenpeace in the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki have given readings for
TBT (a toxic substance contained in antifouling paints) in excess of the limits proposed by international
conventions.

the high toxicity of

In view of
the German Government had asked the
Commission to draw up a uniform European policy to restrict the use of TBT. Since that was not
forthcoming within the time limits set by Germany, however, the German Government decided in January
2001 to ban the use of TBT through national legislation. From 1 January 2003, therefore, TBT-based
paints will no longer be available in Germany.

this particular substance,

As the use of TBT in Greece and the other Member States is prohibited only on vessels shorter than 25 m
and on installations or equipment which are completely or partly below water, will the Commission issue
a general ban on that substance in view of the fact that less toxic substitutes are also available?