WRITTEN QUESTION E-0289/02 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Distortion of competition caused by the supplementary pension fund of the German building industry.
Date: 2002-02-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, building industry, collective agreement, competition law, competition policy, restriction on competition, supplementary pension

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/109

(2002/C 205 E/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0289/02

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Distortion of competition caused by the supplementary pension fund of the German building

industry

1.
How does the Commission view the disadvantageous position of the German building industry, in
comparison with the rest of Europe, caused by the obligation to pay into the building industry’s
supplementary pension fund in Wiesbaden?

2. What
is the Commission’s reaction to this distortion of competition? Have there been any
investigations, examinations, decisions or other deliberations as to how to rectify this discrimination
against the German building industry?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2002)

The European competition rules prohibit certain agreements between undertakings that would be harmful
to competition (Article 81 of the EC Treaty), the abuse of a dominant position (Article 82 of the EC Treaty)
and certain forms of State aid which may distort competition. However, national rules resulting from
legislation or collective agreements and which are likely to weaken a sector’s competitiveness are not
covered by European competition law, since it would be contrary to the principle of the bargaining
autonomy of the social partners if Community law prevented the social partners from negotiating pay
levels and arrangements for workers in a given sector. As regards legislative rules, it should be noted that
provisions such as those referred to by the Honourable Member are not damaging to undertakings in other
Member States and therefore there is no need for the Community to intervene.

(2002/C 205 E/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0295/02

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) and Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Restrictions on freedom of movement by the Belgian government law on guaranteed family

allowances

The rules coordinating social security give responsibility for family allowances to the country in which
frontier workers are employed.

Belgium, on the other hand, has listed its legislation on guaranteed family allowances (Belgian law of
20 July 1971) in Annex IIa to Article 10a of Regulation 1408/71 (1). Consequently, under the law, it is not
possible to export the allowances. Frontier workers living in the Netherlands and employed in Belgium are
not entitled, for example, to Belgian maternity benefits or the adoption allowance. The new taxation
agreement between the Netherlands and Belgium also stipulates that frontier workers employed in Belgium
are taxable in Belgium and therefore pay tax as well as social security contributions in Belgium.

Does the Commission not agree that this situation creates an obstacle to the free movement of

1.
workers? What measures does it intend to take in this connection?