WRITTEN QUESTION E-2208/02 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Anti-competitive methods used when the weight of non-Austrian coaches is being checked in Austria.
Date: 2002-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, application of EU law, police checks, restriction on competition, road transport, transport regulations, vehicle rental, weight and size

C 52 E/138

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

Freedom of expression is recognised in particular by Article 10 of the European Convention for the
the Union Charter of
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Rights and by Article 11 of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to which the Honourable Member refers.

However, exercise of that freedom may,
restricted provided that certain conditions are met.

in accordance with the two aforementioned instruments, be

Any restrictions must be laid down by law and must constitute measures necessary in a democratic society
to protect legitimate public interests.

Assessment as to whether those conditions are met must be carried out on a case-by-case basis.

As for the Internet sites mentioned, the Honourable Member does not provide sufficient details for an
assessment to be carried out.

The Commission is monitoring closely developments regarding Internet communications and will, should
the need arise, take any appropriate measures under the powers vested in it.

(2003/C 52 E/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2208/02

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 July 2002)

Subject: Anti-competitive methods used when the weight of non-Austrian coaches is being checked in

Austria

From the point of view of competition, what is the Commission’s opinion of the fact that non-

1.
Austrian double-axle coaches are regularly pulled over in Austria for a weight check?

Should excess weight be determined, the Austrian police direct the coach companies involved to a
2.
specific subcontractor which (alone) has an office actually on the site of the authorities’ weigh station.
What is the Commission’s reaction to such anti-competitive reference to a specific undertaking, especially
in situations where the foreign coach companies have no realistic alternative (e.g. at night)?

3. What is the Commission’s view of the fact that the service provider referred to will supply the
‘penalised’ coach companies with extra coaches in order to reduce the rate only at rates which are well
above market rates? Is the Commission aware that, in addition, the service provider referred to does not
provide the service agreed? In one instance reported to me, the subcontractor made the German travellers
who had changed to one of his coaches alight therefrom before they had reached the Europe Bridge,
thereby saving himself the cost of additional mileage and the Brenner motorway toll, although those
amounts had been included in the price charged (EUR 650 + EUR 130 VAT).

4. What is the Commission’s view of such distortion of competition? Has the Commission received
other complaints of this nature, for example from the Netherlands?

Has a specific decision already been taken on this issue or consideration given to other ways in

5.
which such anti-competitive conduct may be punished?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

In carrying out such checks on both heavy goods vehicles and coaches, Austria is applying Community
provisions on road transport between Member States,
including Directive 96/53/EC on the weights,
dimensions and certain technical features of heavy goods vehicles (1), Directive 96/96/EC on roadworthi-
ness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers (2), and Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 (3) and No 3821/85 (4)
on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and on recording equipment.

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/139

Nonetheless, the Community rules (i.e. Regulations (EEC) No 4060/89 (5) and No 3912/92 (6) on the
elimination of controls performed at the Community’s internal frontiers, and the Act of Accession of
Austria) stipulate that such checks are to be carried out on a random basis and may not result in normal
traffic being held up unduly. In addition, they must be performed as part of the ordinary checks performed
in a non-discriminatory manner throughout a Member State’s territory.

The Commission is aware of the practices reported by the Honourable Member whereby the drivers of
lorries or coaches found to exceed the authorised weight are required to use the services of local
companies which provide them with additional vehicles.

Following the usual procedure, the Commission has contacted the Austrian authorities to express its
concern at this situation, which it will examine in the light of the Austrian Government’s reply.

(1) Council Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the
Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised
weights in international traffic, OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.

(2) Council Directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating

to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers, OJ L 46, 17.2.1997.

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation

relating to road transport, OJ L 370, 31.12.1985.

(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport, OJ L 370,

31.12.1985.

(5) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4060/89 of 21 December 1989 on the elimination of controls performed at the

frontiers of Member States in the field of road and inland waterway transport, OJ L 390, 30.12.1989.

(6) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3912/92 of 17 December 1992 on controls carried out within the Community in the
field of road and inland waterway transport in respect of means of transport registered or put into circulation in a
third country, OJ L 395, 31.12.1992.

(2003/C 52 E/159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2223/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Russian nuclear energy industry

Is the Commission party to the agreement concluded in late June in Canada between the G-7 and Russia
which will result in aid amounting to USD 20 billion being granted to resurrect the moribund Russian
nuclear energy industry by massively subsidising plutonium MOX fuel, when it is clear that Euratom is
manifestly incapable of applying safeguards and security measures to existing EU nuclear plants and that
Russia cannot apply robust physical protection and security measures on its existing nuclear facilities?
What is Euratom’s current role in assisting in safeguards implementation in Russia?

Answer given by Mrs. de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

The Group of eight most industrialised countries (G8) launched in the Kananaskis summit (Canada, 26 and
27 June 2002) a global partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction to
develop, co-ordinate, implement and finance, according to their respective means, new or expanded co-
operation projects to address non-proliferation, disarmament, counter-terrorism and nuclear security and
safety (including environmental) issues. Up to now, several G8 countries have announced contributions
ranging from USD 1 billion per year (United States) to US Dollars 200 million over 10 years (Japan).