WRITTEN QUESTION E-2014/01 by Jo Leinen (PSE) to the Commission. Plans for the Gigapole shopping centre on the Franco-German border (district of Forbach).
Date: 2001-07-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Lorraine, competition law, dominant position, shopping centre

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/237

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2009/01 and E-2010/01
given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The procedures and conditions for issuing short-stay visas are laid down in the Common Consular
Instructions (CCI) (1), an instrument of the Schengen acquis now integrated into the framework of the
European Union. Long-stay visas remain the responsibility of the individual Member State and are not,
therefore, covered by the CCI.

The CCI sets out
the criteria for determining which Member State is responsible for handling an
application for a short-stay visa. Responsibility rests in the first instance with the Member State that is the
sole or main destination of the visit. Failing this, the Member State which is the first point of entry will be
responsible.

While recognising that the organisation of visa services is a matter for each Member State, the CCI lays
down a number of principles of good organisation addressed to heads of consular posts: staff should not
be exposed to local pressures and there should be a regular rotation of officials to prevent the development
of habits which could lead to a decline in the level of vigilance.

As far as relations between the consulates and the central administration are concerned, it is for each
Member State to make the arrangements it deems necessary in terms of organisation, management and
safeguards.

The Commission is not aware of the matters referred to by the Honourable Member and intends to contact
the Belgian authorities for further information.

(1) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000.

(2001/C 364 E/261)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2014/01

by Jo Leinen (PSE) to the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Subject: Plans for the (cid:145)Gigapole(cid:146) shopping centre on the Franco-German border (district of Forbach)

Plans under way to build a huge (cid:145)Gigapole(cid:146) shopping centre covering 100 000 square metres on the
Franco-German border in the district of Forbach in the dØpartement of Moselle.

This gigantic centre would have a severely negative impact on the retail trade on both sides of the border.
The Saarland traders(cid:146) association estimates that purchasing power of DM 400 million per year would be
diverted from local businesses to this (cid:145)Gigapole(cid:146). The consequences would be inner city desolation and
a retail slump in the neighbouring Saarland towns of Saarbr(cid:252)cken, V(cid:246)lklingen and Saarlouis as well as in
the towns of Sarreguemines and Forbach in Lorraine.

Such a (cid:145)mega-centre(cid:146) (cid:129) exploiting its proximity to the border (cid:129) is contrary to all the rules of organised
regional planning and socio-economic development.

Will the Commission, therefore, say:

1. whether it is aware of the plans for the (cid:145)Gigapole(cid:146) in the district of Forbach, and

2. what measures it intends to take to stop this distortion of competition and breach of regional

planning principles?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2001)

The Commission has not been informed of the plans for the construction of a (cid:145)Gigapole(cid:146) shopping centre
in the Forbach area. Regulation of the establishment of shopping centres does not fall within Community

C 364 E/238

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

competence. Regional or spatial planning is dealt with by the competent regional or national authorities of
the Member States. Thus it is not for the Commission to take a stance on such Questions.

However, the Commission encourages cross-border co-operation of the competent national or regional
administrations.

The Community competition rules (Articles 81 and 82 (ex-Articles 85 and 86) of the EC Treaty) concern
the elimination of agreements between undertakings which restrict competition (e.g price-fixing
agreements between competitors) and of abuses of a dominant position. Article 82 does not as such
prohibit dominance.

While the Commission is willing to examine any complaint brought to its attention, it is unable, in the
absence of any further detail, to share the view of the Honourable Member that the planned (cid:145)Gigapole(cid:146)
shopping centre in the Forbach area is likely to distort competition in the sense of the Community
competition rules.

(2001/C 364 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2057/01

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Directive 1999/44/EC concerning guarantees on consumer goods:

inadequate protection of

shopkeepers

Directive 1999/44/EC (1) requires shopkeepers to give consumers two years(cid:146) guarantee on the consumer
goods they sell. Suppliers, importers or manufacturers, on the other hand, are not subject to any statutory
guarantee obligation towards the shopkeeper. Consequently, shopkeepers have to rely on the good will of
their suppliers when they are required to repair or replace a faulty product. In practice, retailers often have
to bear the cost of repair or replacement themselves. To bring legal action often takes too long and is too
expensive.

Does not the Commission consider that it is unbalanced and unreasonable to impose such stringent
guarantee obligations on shopkeepers when the latter do not have the same means of redress against the
manufacturer or importer of the faulty product? Has the Commission already considered this imbalance in
the existing legislation, and has it received any other complaints about it? Does it not think that the
legislation ought also to give the shopkeeper certain rights if he has bought a faulty product from his
supplier?

(1) OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

Article 4 of Directive 1999/44/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects
of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, provides the final seller with a right of redress
directed against other members of the distribution chain. Article 4 stipulates that, where the final seller is
liable to the consumer because of a lack of conformity resulting from an act or omission by the producer,
a previous seller in the same chain of contracts or any other intermediary, the final seller shall be entitled
to pursue remedies against the person or persons liable in the contractual chain. The person or persons
liable against whom the final seller may pursue remedies, together with the relevant actions and conditions
of exercise, shall be determined by national law.

It is therefore up to the Member States(cid:146) legislation to provide effective means of redress for the final seller.

However, the contractual relationship between the final seller and the person in the distribution chain
from whom he/she buys (cid:129) being a contract between two traders (cid:129) is governed by the principle of
freedom of contract. Therefore it is possible that the legal rights of the seller are restricted by way of
contract. This has been clarified by recital 9 of the Directive.