WRITTEN QUESTION E-3021/01 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Spanish mobile phone text message prices.
Date: 2001-10-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, competition law, electronic mail, mobile phone, telephone charges

C 147 E/76

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

(2002/C 147 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3019/01

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject:

’Skip a day’ feeding for broiler chicken parent stock

(29 October 2001)

’Skip-a-day’ feeding is the poultry industry’s term for a limited ration of feed being given to poultry
breeding stock only every other day. This restriction is often too severe and therefore cruel. Can the
Commission confirm whether Council Directive 98/58/EC (1) concerning the protection of animals kept for
farming purposes prohibited such a practice and, if so, what measures have been taken to ensure that
farmers throughout all the Member States are no longer restricting feed through this cruel method.

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2002)

Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming
purposes, provides that ‘All animals must have access to feed at intervals appropriate to their physiological
needs’ (Annex, point 15) and that animals are fed with a ‘sufficient quantity to maintain them in good
health and satisfy their nutritional needs’.

The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) adopted, on 21 March 2000,
an opinion on the welfare of chickens kept for meat production. The Scientific Committee points out that
severe feed restrictions result in unacceptable welfare problems. However, it also indicates that allowing
breeding birds to reach a high body weight, through free access to feed, leads to other serious welfare
problems with the current breeds.

It
is therefore not possible to conclude that every form of restricted access to food constitutes a
contravention of the Directive without taking into account possible detrimental impacts of ad-libitum-
feeding on the welfare of the animals. Whether a particular feeding system is in fact contrary to the
requirements of point 15 of the Annex to the Directive is thus a question of fact, to be judged in the first
instance by Member States when enforcing the Directive.

Where a Member State finds that a feeding system contravenes the requirements of the Annex, then, by
virtue of having transposed the Directive, it should have available to it appropriate powers to take specific
measures, as appropriate for the welfare of the animals.

It should be mentioned that,
in the light of the opinion from the SCAHAW referred to above, the
Commission has planned to present during the second half of 2002 a proposal to the Council aiming at
establishing standards for the protection of broilers.

(2002/C 147 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3021/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 October 2001)

Subject: Spanish mobile phone text message prices

The three leading Spanish mobile phone operators, Airtel, Telefónica (Movistar), and Amena, all charge
exactly the same prices for text messages. Messages sent within Spain cost Ptas 25 each, and messages sent
to other countries Ptas 100 each. Is the Commission investigating these ‘chance similarities’ in the big
operators’ price scales? Does it have the means to prevent the formation of price cartels for services of this
kind, which, though cheap, are extraordinarily lucrative for the operators?

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/77

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2002)

So far the Commission has not received any formal complaints concerning the short messages (SMS)
pricing practices of mobile network operators, neither in Spain nor elsewhere in the Community. The
pricing for SMS roaming on the other hand is already subject of the Commission’s sector inquiry into
mobile roaming charges in case COMP/C1/37 639, and the Commission is evaluating standard practices
its standard
and pricing of SMS roaming in the context of
international roaming agreement and inter-operator tariff in Case COMP/C1/37 034.

the GSM Association’s notification of

Parallel pricing in itself is not illegal. Although parallel pricing can be an indication of agreements or of
concerted practices on pricing that do infringe the competition rules, the Commission would generally
require more substantial prima facie evidence before opening a cartel case at its own initiative. The
reported pricing practices for SMS services may reflect the general oligopolistic nature of the national
markets for mobile services in the Community, which makes these markets conducive to parallel behaviour
both on services that are subject to active price competition, and on services that are not.

The Commission cannot prevent the formation of cartels except by the deterrent effect of fines in its cartel
decisions. Where new markets are concerned, as in the case of SMS services, preventive action may in any
event be difficult
to target even if based on ‘ex ante’ sector-specific regulation, although the new
framework currently under negotiation will provide a more flexible basis for responding in similar
circumstances. However, lowering entry barriers and increasing the information available to consumers
will reduce the possibilities for collusion among oligopolists, and increase the incentives to compete for
customers’ business instead.

Meanwhile, the Commission takes note of the Honourable Member’s concern and will forward his question
to the relevant Spanish authorities, who are better placed to judge whether further action may be
warranted.

(2002/C 147 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3034/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 October 2001)

Subject: VAT on projects supported by voluntary fund-raising

Charitable projects for building and refurbishment of hospitals as opposed to housing are obliged to pay
full rate VAT to the UK Treasury, thereby forfeiting a large proportion of the money raised. This is
understandably demoralising for the volunteers involved.

Would the Commission therefore consider reviewing the Annex H list of the 6th VAT Directive, to at least
allow such charitable projects to pay reduced-rate VAT?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2001)

Where building and refurbishment are concerned, current Community legislation only provides for the
application of a reduced VAT rate on services supplied to housing (under the social policy).