WRITTEN QUESTION E-0870/02 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Examination of possible breach of competition law.
Date: 2002-04-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, competition law, distribution business, dominant position, principle of subsidiarity, public sector, restriction on competition, wholesale trade

C 301 E/60

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2002)

The question refers to the obligation of monitoring bathing waters under the Bathing Water Directive
(Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (1)). The
Directive provides a clear definition of ‘bathing water’, i.e. all running or still fresh waters or parts thereof
(…), in which bathing is explicitly authorised by the Member State, or bathing is not prohibited and is
traditionally practised by a large number of bathers. Based on this definition Member States have the
responsibility to identify bathing waters and to ensure the necessary monitoring.

Sweden has (cid:1) since its accession to the Union in 1995 (cid:1) never identified bathing waters in the Borlänge
municipality, and therefore never provided monitoring results on them. The three bathing waters being
closest to Borlänge are situated in the Säter municipality (Hyen, Ljusternbadet, Sovarbo). These waters were
monitored in 2001 and will be part of the Commission annual bathing water report to be published
shortly.

The Commission will take the opportunity of this question to enquire with the Swedish authorities
whether there is reason to reconsider the fact of not identifying bathing areas in the Borlänge municipality.
The Commission will inform the Honourable Member directly of the outcome of this enquiry.

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.

(2002/C 301 E/065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0870/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Examination of possible breach of competition law

(2 April 2002)

In late 2000, the pharmaceuticals distributor Kronan Droghandel lodged a complaint with the Commission
against the Swedish Government and Apoteksbolaget (National Corporation of Swedish Pharmacies) for
breach of the Treaty. Kronan’s action was in response to the joint plans of Apoteksbolaget and the Swedish
Government to set up regional distribution centres. The aim of the Swedish Government in this respect
was to create new jobs in places affected by the disbanding of military units.

Kronan considered that if Apoteksbolaget entered the market for pharmaceuticals distribution, it would
In
strengthen its dominant position on the pharmaceuticals market through its monopoly on sales.
Kronan’s view, that situation would be in breach of Swedish competition law (taken over from Community
rules) which prohibits abuse of a dominant position and that, therefore, the Swedish Government and
Apoteksbolaget would be in breach of their obligations under the Treaty.

The Commission was to examine whether there are grounds for the complaint. What is the outcome of
that examination?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

The Commission did indeed receive a complaint on 15 December 2000 alleging that the Swedish State-
owned company Apoteksbolaget planned to extend its legal retail monopoly for pharmaceuticals in
Sweden to the market for the wholesale sale of pharmaceuticals, thereby effectively foreclosing competition
in the wholesale market.

However, as a similar complaint was lodged with the Swedish Competition Authority based on the
Swedish Competition Act (which is closely modelled on Community competition law), the Commission
decided that the Swedish Authority should take the lead in investigating the allegations. This was natural as
the centre of gravity of the case was in Sweden. Moreover, this is in line with the Commission’s planned
modernisation of the application of Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty,
involving a greater role for
national authorities and courts (1).

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/61

In its decision of 6 June 2001, the Swedish Competition Authority concluded that there was no reason to
reach a decision on the substance in view of the fact that Apoteksbolaget had withdrawn its plans to
extend its activities. As a result, the complainant withdrew its complaint with the Commission. The case
lodged with the Commission concerning the complaint referred to by the Honourable Member was
accordingly closed.

(1) The envisaged legal basis for the modernisation of Community competition law is the Commission’s proposal of
27 September 2000 for a Council Regulation on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in
Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty and amending Regulations (EEC) No 1017/68, (EEC) No 2988/74, (EEC) No 4056/
86 and (EEC) No 3975/87 (‘Regulation implementing Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty’), OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.

(2002/C 301 E/066)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0872/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2002)

Subject: Protected bird species

The white-cheeked goose is commonly found on the Swedish royal family’s land at Drottningholm outside
Stockholm. Complaints have been made that the bird causes pollution and, in certain cases, also attacks
passers-by.

In 2000, the Stockholm County Administrative Board granted the royal household at Drottningholm
permission to empty some 30 nests of their eggs and to shoot around 20 birds, though the latter was not
carried out as an oil spill in the summer of 2000 decimated the stock.

However, the Swedish ornithological society considered that Sweden is responsible under the wild bird
directive for protecting the stock. The white-cheeked goose reportedly breeds only in Sweden and Finland
within the Union. The ornithologists announced in Aftonbladet on 15 October 2000 that they would draw
the Commission’s attention to the fact that the County Administrative Board had granted authorisation for
protective hunting of white-cheeked geese, black woodpecker, goshawk, buzzard and osprey.

Has the Commission received any report concerning the abovementioned cases and has the matter been
investigated? If an investigation has taken place, what was the outcome?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

The Commission has not received complaints, either from individuals or from organisations, about the
Regional Administration of Stockholm having given permissions for hunting barnacle goose, black
woodpecker, goshawk, buzzard and common gull.

According to Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) out of
the above mentioned species only the common gull can be hunted regularly in Sweden (Annex II/2). Under
Article 9 of the directive, Member States can grant derogation permitting the taking of other species for
specific reasons such as to control damage to agricultural crops. The Swedish report on derogations
granted in the year 2000 includes those granted by Regional Administration of Stockholm for killing
barnacle goose (77 killed) and goshawk (50 killed); the report does not mention black woodpecker or
buzzard. Acting upon the information supplied by the Honourable Member, the Commission will ask the
Swedish authorities to comment on the issues raised.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.