WRITTEN QUESTION E-2209/01 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The Commission's efforts to investigate the PerryLux case.
Date: 2001-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, European Anti-fraud Office, Luxembourg, confidentiality, legal action

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/39

Answer given b y Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2001)

Uzbekistan is a beneficiary country of the European Union’ Generalized System of Trade Preferences (GSP)
and thus enjoys the tariff preferences laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 of 21 December
1998 applying a multiannual scheme of generalized tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1998 to
31 December 2001 (1). Preferential access to the Community market is limited to products originating in
beneficiary countries, and proof of origin has to be provided by a certificate of origin Form A. Shipments
accompanied by a valid certificate of origin Form A enjoy all the advantages available under the GSP.

The GSP provides, however, different arrangements, and the most favorable of these arrangements is
granted only to Least Developed Countries (LDC), recognized as such by the United Nations, based on
criteria such as a low income, weak human resources and a low level of economic diversification (2).
Bangladesh, Cambodia and Myanmar are on the United Nations list of LDCs. However, GSP benefits have
been withdrawn from Myanmar.

Uzbekistan is not a LDC and therefore entitled only to the general arrangements of the GSP. It enjoys the
same benefits as any other beneficiary country of these arrangements.

(1) OJ L 357, 30.12.1998.
(2) http://www.unctad.org/en/pub/ldcprofiles2001.en.htm.

(2002/C 115 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2209/01

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: The Commission’s efforts to investigate the PerryLux case

In paragraph 14 of its resolution of 4 April 2001 on the implementation of the 1998 general budget
(A5-0112/2001) Parliament called on the Commission:

> to clarify why, in the proceedings before the Belgian courts in the ‘PerryLux affair’, the Commission

has not yet appeared as joint plaintiff and thus has no access to the files; and

> to appear without delay as joint plaintiff in Belgium, as it has already been doing for some time in the

corresponding proceedings before the Luxembourg courts.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Who took the decision not to appear as a joint plaintiff from the outset in Belgium, as was done in

Luxembourg?

2. What justification was given for this decision?

3. When was Parliament’s call to appear as joint plaintiff finally complied with?

4. When the Commission applied to the Belgian court for access to the files, and whether this request

has been met?

5. Whether the files have already been consulted, and if so, whether any evidence of misconduct by

officials or former Members of the Commission was found?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2001)

At this point, the Commission has not joined a civil action in the case referred to by the Honourable
Member.

C 115 E/40

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Nevertheless, the Commission would point out the dossiers pending before both the Luxembourg and
Belgian courts are being closely monitored by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF), which is in contact
with the national judicial bodies. Since the cases are still under examination, strict confidentiality is being
maintained.

When the appropriate time comes, OLAF will provide the Commission with the necessary material to join
a civil action. Meanwhile, the Commission does not wish to interfere with the independence of OLAF in
carrying our its operational tasks.

(2002/C 115 E/040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2214/01

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: Car manufacturers withholding technical information from independent vehicle-repair specialists

Is the Commission aware that major car manufacturers are withholding equipment and technical
information from independent vehicle-repair specialists in the UK so as to ensure that cars may be
repaired only by franchise garages?

Would the Commission investigate, as a matter of urgency, this practice, which appears to constitute a
restriction of trade and is forcing small, independent operators out of business?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2001)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s reply to a letter from the Honourable Member
dated 9 July 2001, which covered essentially the same subject matter as this present reply.

The Commission is well aware of the difficulties faced by independent garages that wish to repair modern
vehicles. Such vehicles increasingly contain complex electronic systems that can only be accessed using
brand- or model-specific technical information and diagnostic equipment.

As the Honourable Member may know, exclusive and selective car distribution networks presently fall
within the ambit of Block Exemption Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 (1). At the time that this Regulation was
adopted, cars were less technologically complex, and access to specialised diagnostic tools and information
was not such an important issue as it is today.

Article 6(1)(12) of Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 provides that car manufacturers must make accessible to
independent repairers the technical
information necessary for the repair and maintenance of motor
vehicles. Even where the information is covered by the manufacturer’s intellectual property rights or
constitutes identified, substantial and secret know-how, it may not be withheld in a discriminatory or
abusive manner.

The manufacturer may ask independent garages for a reasonable payment for the supply of technical
information. This fee may not, however, be discriminatory or set at a prohibitively high level.

Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 is of course not the only legislation that has a bearing on this issue. In certain
cases where the equipment concerned is for monitoring on-board systems intended to reduce pollution,
Directive 98/69/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to measures to be
taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/220/
EEC (2) may also be relevant. This Directive provides that no later than three months after the manufacturer
has provided any authorised dealer or repair shop within the Community with repair information, the
manufacturer must make that
information (including all subsequent amendments and supplements)
available to all repair market operators for a reasonable non-discriminatory fee.