WRITTEN QUESTION P-1453/02 by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Port of Helsingborg — abuse of a dominant position concerning fees.
Date: 2002-05-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, dominant position, ferryboat, harbour installation, tax

C 28 E/108

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

(2003/C 28 E/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1453/02

by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 May 2002)

Subject: Port of Helsingborg (cid:1) abuse of a dominant position concerning fees

In 1996 (filed at the beginning of 1997) two complaints were lodged alleging abuse of a dominant
position by the port of Helsingborg towards two of its users. The companies had been charged higher fees
by the port authorities. One of the users decided to pay the charged fees, while the other decided to reduce
the amount to 50 % of what they had been charged and are still being charged.

In July 2001 Mr Stenmarck MEP addressed the Commissioner in charge, Mr Mario Monti, asking about the
progress so far and when to expect a decision. Mr Monti replied that the complaints would have been
under active investigation, having been given top priority since they were filed. He referred to the opening
of the Öresund bridge in July 2000, which, in his opinion, had changed the markets significantly and
made it more difficult to determine the market situation. However an indication of time or a possible
outcome could not be given on his part (1).

The situation appearing now and throughout the whole period of time is that the port of Helsingborg and
the two companies do not have the possibility of getting a realistic overview of their financial situations.
The amount of fees being withheld by one of the companies has grown to EUR 30 000 000 plus interest.
In particular, the new market situation, in the form of fiercer competition as a result of the Öresund bridge
opening, makes it even more necessary to come to a quick decision because all participants in the dispute
need clarity about their terms of competition and their competitiveness. The main interest is thus to clarify
the situation after seven years of proceedings.

In view of these points, the Commission is asked to answer the following questions:

(cid:1) what is the current status of the Commission’s investigation concerning the dominant position abuse

of the Port of Helsingborg?

(cid:1) What actions (cid:1) despite a seven year processing period and taking Commissioner Monti’s statement
into account that this matter was given top priority (cid:1) will be taken by the Commission in the
immediate future?

(cid:1) When does the Commission expect to get a definitive result on this issue?

(1) Question H-0535/01 (cid:1) oral reply, 3.7.2001.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2002)

The Honourable Member refers to complaints by two ferry-operators alleging an abuse of a dominant
position by the Port of Helsingborg consisting of excessive and discriminatory pricing. This case has been
considered by the Commission from the outset as being important, notably because of the importance of
transportation of passengers and goods between Sweden and Denmark. Since the complaints were
submitted, substantial information has been requested and obtained from all parties involved to establish
the facts. As the Member of the Commission responsible for Competition indeed explained before the
Parliament in June 2001 (Oral Question H-0535/01 during question time at Parliament’s July 2001
session), the case is very complex both in terms of facts and law.

The Commission is actively pursuing the investigation as it is fully aware of the consequences of the
situation on the parties (the port and the ferry operators). The Commission has recently carried out a
further round of fact-finding, which included meetings with all the parties involved in the context of a visit
in the port of Helsingborg on 4-5 March 2002.

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/109

As regards the timetable in this case, the Commission has already indicated to the parties, that if
proceedings were opened, or alternatively, if preliminary steps were taken to reject the complaint, then the
present estimates are that the Commission could be in a position to propose that a decision be adopted in
this case by the end of 2002.

(2003/C 28 E/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1458/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Arrest of human rights activists in Cuba

(23 May 2002)

Is the Commission aware of the arrest on 5 March 2002 in Ciego de Avilan of Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva,
chairman of the Cuban Human Rights Foundation and the Brotherhood of the Independent Blind People of
Cuba?

Does the Commission know that human rights activists in Cuba are treated violently by the Cuban
authorities?

What can the Commission do to prevent this kind of violence against people who work to promote
human rights in Cuba, and is the Commission prepared to take action?

(2003/C 28 E/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1467/02

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Juan Carlos Gonzalez (cid:1) Cuba

Juan Carlos Gonzalez is a blind human rights activist who has been in prison in Cuba since 5 March. Will
the Commission call for the release of this man and impress upon the Cuban authorities that the
imprisonment of human rights activists and the mistreatment of prisoners is unacceptable, particularly
when the EU is attempting to broaden its relations with that country?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1458/02 and E-1467/02
given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2002)

The Commission is following this matter very closely: Mr Gonzalez was detained by the Cuban security
forces on 4 March 2002 on charges of public disorder and contempt. Both crimes, according to Cuban
law, can carry a possible sentence of one to three years. No trial has been set so far.

The Commission is very concerned about this case. The European Union Human Rights Working Group
established by the Member States embassies in Havana is monitoring the case. Experience with similar
cases in the past suggests that the most effective way of addressing human rights violations in Cuba is
through concerted and co-ordinated action at Union level. As a rule, the Commission and the Member
States closely monitor the human rights situation in Cuba,
in the context of both the six-monthly
evaluation of the Union Common Position on Cuba and the annual Geneva meetings of the United Nation
Commission on Human Rights. Furthermore, human rights matters form an integral part of the Union’s
political dialogue with Cuba, which was re-launched under the Belgian Presidency in December 2001.