WRITTEN QUESTION E-2158/01 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Commission's position on barriers to market liberalisation in some Member States.
Date: 2001-07-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, State monopoly, application of EU law, competition law, energy industry, liberalisation of the market, restriction on competition

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/121

1.

Can the Commission explain the cause for this long delay?

2.
Is the Commission aware that, owing to this delay, the current manufacturers are occupying a
monopoly position with their tests, particularly taking into account that, if a laboratory uses a specific test
once, it continues to use it for a long period? What is the Commission(cid:146)s opinion on this?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2001)

Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for
the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (1), as last
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1326/2001 of 29 June 2001 (2), lists three rapid tests which
are approved for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) monitoring. The tests were selected based on an
evaluation carried out by the Commission in 1999.

A second evaluation started in December 2000. As in the first evaluation, the tests to be evaluated were
selected by a panel of experts following a worldwide call for expressions of interest.

The second evaluation has been delayed due to unforeseen circumstances. The outbreak of foot-and-mouth
disease in the United Kingdom lead to a delay in the delivery of positive samples from the national
reference laboratory in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, there were unexpected problems using the
available frozen test samples and a new series had to be prepared. Clearly, it would be unacceptable to
accelerate the approval of tests without ensuring that the necessary scientific evaluation is rigorously and
properly carried out. Public health considerations must take precedence over commercial considerations in
this respect.

The Commission does not consider the present situation a monopoly, as the three approved tests are
manufactured and marketed by different companies. The Commission is however following the situation
carefully.

(1) OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.
(2) OJ L 177, 30.6.2001.

(2002/C 81 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2158/01

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Subject: Commission(cid:146)s position on barriers to market liberalisation in some Member States

Some Member States are blocking or delaying the process of market liberalisation under way in the EU.
This is true of the energy sector in France and Germany.

For example, France is maintaining two State monopolies in the energy sector, both expanding rapidly in
competition with other liberalised European undertakings, with the support of the European Union.

Precisely because of this EU support, the question is continuously being asked why the Commission does
not adopt a clear and firm stance on the matter, by taking measures against those countries which block
or delay liberalisation.

How will the Commission tackle these restrictive practices, which various Member States are pursuing in
this field?

C 81 E/122

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the existing
inequalities in the current extent of liberalisation in the energy sector. In response to these concerns,
during its meeting of 20 June 2001, the Commission underlined that the most effective and appropriate
method of redressing the market opening imbalance, and distortions of competition that result, is the rapid
adoption by the Council and the Parliament of the March 2001 proposals to complete the liberalisation of
Community energy markets (1).

As regards differences in the current extent of liberalisation in the energy sector, the Commission considers
that
the
these should be addressed by the rapid adoption by the Council and the Parliament of
Commission(cid:146)s March 2001 proposals to further liberalise 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 (2).

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

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

liberalisation Directives

(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/UK interconnectors), stranded costs schemes and locking-in of key
customers (Gas Natural/Endesa).

If adoption of the proposals to further liberalise energy markets were delayed, the Commission would
consider adopting itself Decisions or Directives, on the basis of Article 86 of the EC Treaty, and notably its
third paragraph,
levels of
liberalisation. Such an approach, whereby the Commission adopted Directives addressed to the Member
States based on Article 86(3) of the EC Treaty, was previously used in the telecommunications sector.

to address possible distortions of competition resulting from different

(1) COM(2001) 125 final.
(2)

IP/01/356.

(2002/C 81 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2163/01

by Jorge HernÆndez Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Subject: Use of pedestrian streets and public transport to reduce urban noise

At a recent meeting in Malaga of the working party responsible for drawing up the background paper for
the Urbal programme on the urban environment in the EU, emphasis was placed on the need to combat
urban noise, which represents the main threat to the environmental standards to which European citizens
are entitled.

The essential recommendations for combating urban noise made by these experts included the need to
improve public transport and increase the number of pedestrian streets in city centres.