WRITTEN QUESTION E-3126/01 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Consistency of competition legislation.
Date: 2001-11-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, Finland, application of EU law, competition law, investment transaction, national law

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/105

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3124/01 and E-3145/01
given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2002)

In its capacity as Guardian of the Treaties, the Commission’s task is, notably, to ensure that Member States
have, as required, adopted national transposing measures in accordance with Community law.

Against this background, the Commission has checked the conformity of the national measures adopted by
the Member States and sent to it for the purposes of transposing Council Directive 89/618/Euratom of
7 December 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and
steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.

This check showed that Germany and France had only partially transposed the Directive and the
Commission therefore immediately inititated infringement procedures against them. As the complaints
about non-conformity continued, the Commission recently decided to start proceedings against these two
Member States before the Court of Justice.

Recently, Germany and France adopted additional national provisions to transpose the Directive into their
respective national legislation. In the case of Germany, the objections raised could be withdrawn in the
light of the text submitted and the Commission therefore decided not to continue with the Court
proceedings. As regards France, the two decrees published this year do not fully resolve the problem of the
non-conformity of French law in respect of Directive 89/618/Euratom. Action before the Court of Justice
is therefore still pending in the latter case, and the Commission’s Legal Service is presently working on the
case.

Regarding the implementation of Directive 89/618/Euratom by the French authorities in the case of the
nuclear power plant at Cattenom, the Commission is not aware that there are any problems between the
French and German authorities as regards the cooperation between the two countries which is essential in
order to apply the Directive to the people concerned in Germany.

However, going beyond the specific case of Cattenom, the Commission wishes to point out that this
matter is one of the complaints made in the proceedings initiated against France concerning Directive
89/618/Euratom, since this Member State has so far not shown that it has any legal instruments to apply
the Directive to the populations concerned in neighbouring Member States.

(2002/C 147 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3126/01

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Consistency of competition legislation

Under Finnish competition legislation all investments have to be approved by the national competition
authority if a single investor makes several investments in the same sector of activity within a two-year
period. In practice the law requires every investor, even those with minority interests, to submit documents
to the Office of Fair Competition.

The situation is frustrating for both investors and the national competition authority, because the office
invariably approves investments. The procedure costs small growth enterprises tens of thousands of euros
and is a downright competitive disadvantage.

C 147 E/106

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

Finland is the only Member State which requires investors to explain their position in this way.

Is the Commission aware of the problems which Finnish competition legislation is causing for growth
enterprises,
investors, and the competition authorities? Is the national law in question contrary to the
competition provisions of the Treaty and EU competition legislation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2002)

The Commission has no knowledge of Finnish competition legislation causing problems for companies,
investors and competition authorities. On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable
Member the Commission can see no grounds which would require investigation under the Community
competition rules. As a general rule, Articles 81 and 82 (ex Article 85 and 86) of the EC Treaty apply to
agreements and behaviour of economic undertakings and only in very limited circumstances can a Member
State be held to have infringed these provisions. The information provided in the question does not reveal
such circumstances. Furthermore, the question does not give any indication that there is an issue of
privileged undertakings which might fall under Article 86 (ex Article 90) of the EC Treaty.

(2002/C 147 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3128/01

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Impact of the ACP-EU partnership agreement and the ‘Everything but Arms’

initiative on the

outermost regions

The challenge of integrating the outermost regions into their regional areas has been proclaimed in various
international fora. However, the fact is that the similarities between their agricultural products and those of
their ACP neighbours, with the wide differences in wage levels can put the outermost regions at a serious
competitive disadvantage.

In its report of 14 March 2000 the Commission undertook to ‘have an independent analysis carried out of
the impact of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement on the outermost regions’, a commitment which was
confirmed on 12 June 2001 in the Commission’s work programme in respect of a sustainable
development strategy for the outermost regions.

Could the Commission keep Parliament informed of the state of progress of this expert analysis, and

1.
at the very least provide it with details of the subject of this impact study?

If

this impact study showed that

these agreements were having a destabilising effect on the
2.
agricultural markets in the outermost regions, to what extent would the European Parliament be involved
in the effort to devise ways of compensating producers in those regions?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2002)

The Commission will keep Parliament informed of the progress of the impact study. The terms of reference
of the study are being finalised by the Commission. All the departments that come under the Inter-
Departmental Group on the Outermost Regions are involved, which means that all aspects of the dossier
can be taken into account. The study is scheduled to start at the beginning of 2002.