WRITTEN QUESTION P-1490/02 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission. Delays in the forwarding of documents (MED case).
Date: 2002-05-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, access to EU information, document, legal process, provision of documents

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/5

Therefore, between December 2000 and June 2002 the Commission has adopted a total of six decisions in
the postal sector:

(cid:1) in December 2000, the Commission adopted a Decision against Italy which confirms that innovative
like time-certain hybrid electronic mail services, may not be included in the postal

new services,
monopoly. With respect to such new services, there should be open competition on the merits;

(cid:1) in March 2001, the Commission imposed a fine on Deutsche Post for AG (DPAG) abusing its
dominant position by granting fidelity rebates to almost the entire German mail order industry. The
Commission also established the rule, that revenues from the monopoly should not be used to finance
a predatory pricing policy in markets open to competition;

(cid:1) in July 2001,

to DPAG setting forth the
circumstances under which the beneficiary of a postal monopoly may not levy the domestic tariff on
incoming cross-border mail;

the Commission adopted a decision with respect

(cid:1) in October 2001, a decision against France demonstrated our ongoing concern that there must be
adequate and independent regulatory supervision by the Government vis-à-vis the beneficiary of the
postal monopoly;

(cid:1) in December 2001, the Commission adopted a decision holding that the Belgian postal operator La
Poste infringed Article 82 of the EC Treaty by making a preferential tariff on the monopoly letter mail
subject to the acceptance of a supplementary contract covering a new business to business (‘B2B’) mail
service. The B2B service competes with the competitive ‘document exchange’ B2B service provided by
private undertakings;

(cid:1) finally, in June 2002, the Commission concluded its State aid investigation into DPAG and found that
the latter used EUR 572 million of State resources received to finance its public service mission to
sustain a five year period of selling below cost in its door-to-door parcel activities, which are open to
competition. The Commission found that this policy of below-cost sales cannot be linked to any
public service mission entrusted on DPAG. Therefore it decided that this loss of EUR 572 million
constitutes incompatible aid, which has to be recovered.

All of these decisions make it clear that the Commission will not accept that postal incumbents exploit the
resources of their monopoly in order to eliminate competitors active in those postal markets that are open
to competition. They should serve as useful precedents and thereby give guidance to public postal
operators as to the Commission’s policy goal to protect competition in those competitive postal markets
distinct from but neighbouring the postal monopoly.

(2003/C 192 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1490/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(22 May 2002)

Subject: Delays in the forwarding of documents (MED case)

Pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) on public access to documents, the Commission
has a period of 15 working days in which to take a decision on requests for documents.

In my Written Question E-2043/01 (2) on 13 July 2001, I asked for a copy of the letter (including all the
annexes) in which what is known as the MED Case was referred to the Belgian legal authorities (letter
No 008035 from the Director of the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, to the Belgian State Prosecutor,
Mr Dejemeppe).

I repeated my request for the document to be forwarded to me in my Written Questions P-2784/01 (3) of
26 September 2001 and E-3632/01 (4) of 17 December 2001.

Since then, some 200 working days have elapsed, and the Commissioner with special responsibility for the
fight against fraud has still not forwarded to me the document that I requested.

Can the Commission forward to me forthwith the document that I requested?

C 192 E/6

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

Can the Commission explain the delay in forwarding to me the document that I requested?

Will the Commission now answer the question that I have put repeatedly and tell me whether the
document was forwarded to other Members of the European Parliament some time ago?

If that should be true, can the Commission explain why it is using delaying tactics of this nature in my
case and the extent to which those tactics comply with the principle of equal treatment of Members?

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.
(2) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 70.
(3) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 54.
(4) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 9.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2002)

to the
The Commission has been informed that
Honourable Member a copy of the letter referred to in his written question, following the closure of the
legal proceedings in Belgium and Italy.

the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has sent

The Commission has no information that would lead it to believe that delay tactics were employed in
sending the letter to the Honourable Member.

(2003/C 192 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1539/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Subject: Illegal timber imports

Would the Commission clarify what provisions currently exist to prevent the import of illegal timber into
the EU?

Does the Commission intend to propose new legislation to prevent the import of illegal timber into the EU
(cid:1) and if so, does the Commission have a timetable for any new proposals?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2002)

The only provisions preventing the import of illegally harvested timber into the Community currently in
force are those contained in the regulations implementing the ‘Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)’. The provisions of CITES are implemented in the
Community by Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of
wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1) and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 of
30 August 2001 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC)
No 338/97 (2). Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 provides for stricter rules than the Convention and
introduction into the Community of species listed in the Annexes is only allowed if the documents
required (import permits for species listed in Annexes A and B;
import notification and additional
documents for species listed in Annexes C and D) can be presented to the customs office at the point of
including Pericopsis elata (Assemala), Guaiacum officinale
introduction. A number of timber species,
(Lignum-vitae), Gonystylus macrophyllum (Ramin) and Swietenia macrophylla (Brazilian Mahogany) are
listed in these Annexes.

The Commission’s Communication to the Council and the Parliament (3) provided that the Community
would ‘develop a European Union action plan by end 2002 on forest law enforcement, governance and