WRITTEN QUESTION E-0868/02 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Quality control of bathing water.
Date: 2002-04-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, application of EU law, bathing water, environmental law, water analysis

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/59

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 and Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 of the Parliament and of the
Council of 25 May 1999 (1) provide in Article 12, paragraph 3 that the Director of OLAF shall report
regularly to the Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors on the findings of
investigations carried out by the Office, whilst respecting the confidentiality of those investigations, the
legitimate rights of the persons involved and, where appropriate, national provisions applicable to judicial
proceedings.

Pursuant to the above legislation, the Director of OLAF is supplying such information either on an ad hoc
basis, that is as regards the Parliament to the Budgetary Control Committee, or in OLAF’s annual activity
report for the period 1 June-31 May in which it provides a statistical breakdown of cases that are in
evaluation, investigation or closed during that period.

For cases in evaluation,
investigation or closed during the period 1 January 2001-31 May 2001, the
Commission refers the Honourable Member to OLAF’s annual activity report for the period 1 June 2000-
31 May 2001. For cases in evaluation, investigation or closed during the period 1 June 2001 to date, the
Commission informs the Honourable Member that OLAF’s annual activity report for the period 1 June
2001-31 May 2002 will be published in early autumn 2002.

With respect to the Honourable Member’s request for the name of the body which is subject to the inquiry
and the date, OLAF is unable to provide such information as it may compromise ongoing investigations or
prejudice the rights of economic operators and/or individuals, who have been or are being investigated for
the detection of irregularities.

that

In the event
it has been determined that an economic operator has infringed a provision of
Community law which has the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the Communities or budgets
managed by them, the Member States, on behalf of the Communities, or in case of direct financing, the
Commission shall recover the amount unduly paid and may impose,
in certain cases, administrative
penalties. Furthermore, in accordance with the above regulations, OLAF shall submit the matter to the
national competent authorities, which may, eventually, commence criminal proceedings.

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2002/C 301 E/064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0868/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2002)

Subject: Quality control of bathing water

In protest against the Union’s directive on the quality control of water in bathing areas, the municipality of
Borlänge announced in August 2000 that it no longer had any bathing areas.

In explanation, the newspaper Dala-Demokraten quoted the town’s environment officer as saying that
sampling was too expensive and that the press just caused trouble.

The municipality of Borlänge thereby hoped to avoid additional expenditure for sampling by ceasing to
designate its bathing areas as such for the EU’s list.

Is it possible to avoid sampling the quality of bathing water in this manner?

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).