WRITTEN QUESTION E-1711/01 by Paolo Costa (ELDR), Guido Bodrato (PPE-DE), Francesco Rutelli (ELDR), Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR), Patrick Cox (ELDR), Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE), Giovanni Procacci (ELDR), Pietro-Paolo Mennea (ELDR), Luciano Caveri (ELDR), Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR), Jules Maaten (ELDR), Astrid Thors (ELDR), Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission. Acquisition by Electricité de France (EDF) of a 3,9 % stake in Montedison.
Date: 2001-06-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, electrical energy, energy production, gas, liberalisation of the market

C 40 E/84

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

This is the general background to consultations on the outermost regions in the light of their specific
situation under Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty: as that Article envisages, this will cover in particular access
by these regions to the Structural Funds. With this in mind, Mr Barnier engaged in initial discussions with
the Presidents of the seven outermost regions last May on RØunion. A further meeting should be held in
the autumn.

It would be premature at this stage to draw up the conclusions of a debate which is still continuing. The
Commission can, however, assure the Honourable Member that
intends to take full account of
Article 299(2).

it

(2002/C 40 E/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1711/01

by Paolo Costa (ELDR), Guido Bodrato (PPE-DE), Francesco Rutelli (ELDR),
Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR), Patrick Cox (ELDR), Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE),
Giovanni Procacci (ELDR), Pietro-Paolo Mennea (ELDR), Luciano Caveri (ELDR),
Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR), Jules Maaten (ELDR), Astrid Thors (ELDR),
Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Mikko Pes(cid:228)l(cid:228) (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Acquisition by ElectricitØ de France (EDF) of a 3,9 % stake in Montedison

ElectricitØ de France (EDF), the state-owned electrical energy monopoly in France, has announced that it
has acquired a 3,9 % stake in Montedison, an industrial holding that controls Edison-Sondel, the main
private Italian operator in the energy (electricity and gas) sector.

In contrast with France, where electricity production and the electrical energy market continue to be fully
controlled by EDF, a situation which has led the Commission to take formal steps, Italy has embarked on a
process of liberalising the gas and electricity market, in full compliance with Community directives.

The EDF(cid:146)s move against Montedison (cid:129) which follows other controversial attempts to expand its activities,
particularly in Spain (cid:129) raises serious general questions concerning the differences in the extent to which
the various national energy markets have been opened up, and their respective timetables for doing so.

An operator such as EDF, whose revenues are absolutely secure due to the fact that it operates a
monopoly, is 100 % publicly owned and is not quoted on the stock exchange, is able to penetrate other
markets on a completely unreciprocal basis.

In view of the foregoing, what position does the Commission intend to adopt, and what measures does it
intend to take, to guarantee the proper functioning of the internal market, given that free competition and
non-discrimination between undertakings are an essential prerequisite for the latter?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2001)

The Commission, in its meeting of 20 June 2001, had the opportunity to reiterate the need for rapid
adoption by the Council and the Parliament of the Commission(cid:146)s March 2001 proposals to liberalise fully
Community energy markets (all non-domestic electricity open to competition by 1 January 2003, non
domestic gas open to competition by 1 January 2004 and all customers, including domestic, open to
competition by 1 January 2005). During its meeting, the Commission underlined that the most effective
and appropriate method of redrawing the market opening imbalance and distorsion of competition that
result is the rapid adoption of this package.

The Commission agreed that to address distortions of competition and inequalities in the short term before
adoption of the further liberalisation proposals it would:

(cid:129) monitor Member States to ensure timely and proper implementation of the existing electricity and gas

liberalisation Directives;

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/85

(cid:129) and ensure that the EC Treaty(cid:146)s competition rules are applied fully in the energy sector. In particular,
the Commission will continue to apply the rules of the Treaties on restrictive business practices and
abuse of a dominant market position against restrictions and distortions in supply competition and
against discrimination in network access, to scrutinise any state aid granted to electricity and gas
companies (including state aid in the nuclear sector) and to apply competition rules against limitations
on consumers(cid:146) right to choose a supplier. Examples of such cases treated by the Commission in the
last two years are the interventions against joint selling (e.g. GFU and EDF/CNR), reinforcements of
dominant positions through mergers (e.g. VEBA/VIAG, EDF/EnBW), privileged network access
(e.g. Danish/German and French/British interconnectors), stranded costs schemes and locking-in of
key customers (Gas Natural/Endesa).

The Commission also agreed that if adoption of the proposals to further liberalise energy markets were
delayed, it would consider adopting itself Decisions or Directives, on the basis of Article 86 (ex Article 90)
of the EC Treaty, and notably its third paragraph, to address possible distortions of competition resulting
from different levels of liberalisation.

The Commission(cid:146)s discussions underlined the importance of a united European market and of ensuring
respect
the Internal Market. The Commission also confirmed its
determination to create a true Internal Market for energy that contributes to greater security of supply and
high quality services of general interest.

for the fundamental principles of

(2002/C 40 E/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1713/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Total depletion of a natural mussel bed in the Wadden Sea protected by the Netherlands by

fishermen operating with a German licence

1.
Can the Commission confirm that there is no agreement between Germany and the Netherlands as to
the demarcation of the border in the wide mouth of the river Ems between the towns of Emden (D) and
Delfzij (NL) and the islands Rottummeroog (NL) and Borkum (D), so that according to the Netherlands the
border runs midway across the body of water while Germany considers the border to run along the Dutch
shore?

2.
Is the Commission aware of the fact that the body of water referred to in paragraph 1, which is sub-
divided into the Dollard, Bocht van Watum and Oostfriesche Gaatje zones, forms part of the protected
Wadden Sea with regard to which agreements exist between the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark
intended to maintain the ecological equilibrium, that the Netherlands and Germany concluded the Eems-
Dollard Agreement in 1960 and an environmental protocol thereto in 1996, and that Netherlands policy
aims to protect the natural mussel beds as a food source for sea birds, partly owing to previous experience
showing that even 10 years after total depletion such mussel beds have failed to recover?

3.
Can the Commission confirm that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries of the German State of
Lower Saxony recently issued a licence for the natural mussel bed extending over 10 hectares of the Hond
sandbank just off the village of Bierum on the Netherlands coast to be totally depleted through fishing and
that German fishermen did so on 16 May 2001 achieving a profit of some € 500 000?

4.
Is the Lower Saxony Minister right in saying that he does not have the authority to refuse a licence
for the complete depletion of stocks in what is deemed to be their territory, even if Germany and the
Netherlands have previously agreed to leave the disputed region untouched?

5. What can the Commission do to prevent an area of the sea protected by a Member State which
voluntarily foregoes commercial exploitation from being devastated as a result of a licence issued by
another Member State?

How can the Commission help prevent the potential destruction of mussel beds in two other

6.
sandbanks in the same disputed border region?

Source: (cid:145)Netwerk(cid:146) current affairs programme broadcast on 20 May 2001 on Nederland 1 (TV channel.)