WRITTEN QUESTION E-2319/02 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Application of national competition law in Slovakia in accordance with EU law.
Date: 2002-07-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community acquis, EU law - national law, Slovakia, accession to the European Union, beverage industry, competition law, merger, merger control

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/17

Spanish and European non-corporate collective investment undertakings harmonised under Directive
EEC/85/611 (1), will have a discriminatory effect on European corporate collective investment undertakings
operating in Spain?

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1985, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2002)

The Commission has taken note of the Bill on the reform of Personal Income tax (regulated in the law 40/
1998 of 9 December 1998) and other fiscal measures applicable in Spain, as published in the Spanish
Congress Bulletin.

Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on undertakings for collective investment
in
transferable securities (UCITS), as well as its successive amendments, do not contain any tax provisions on
UCITS, whatever their legal form is (with or without legal personality).

However, according to constant case-law of the Court of justice of the European Communities, even if
direct taxation falls under the exclusive competence of Member States, these cannot, however, fail to
respect Community rules, and must exercise their competence in the respect of Community law (1).

As the Honourable Member points out, there appears to be a risk of subsequent restriction of competition
and even a new barrier to freely provide services throughout the Union, as these companies might feel
obliged to change their legal form to a fund in order to be able to continue operating in Spain in a
profitable way (2), whereas at the same time they would no longer be able to take into account a preference
by subscribers in other Member States for companies.

There also appears to be a danger of indirect discrimination of foreign investment companies that operate
under corporate form.

The Commission has already contacted the Spanish authorities to ask for an explanation of the reasons
that have led to the introduction of a difference in the tax treatment of the tax payer depending on his
investment in ‘common funds’ (without legal personality) or in ‘investment companies’ (under a corporate
form) in the meaning of Article 1.2 of Council Directive 85/611/EEC. If the reply does not eliminate the
doubts that may occur as to the compliance of the new provisions (if the bill were adopted as it is) with
Community law, the Commission may envisage to take the necessary steps that are at its disposal as
guardian of the EC Treaty.

(1) Cases C-279/93 ‘Schumacker’,

judgment of 14.2.1995, C-80/94 ‘Wielockx’

judgment of 27.6.1996, C-250/95 ‘Futura Participations’

judgment of 11.8.1995, C-107/94
‘Asscher’
judgment of 15.5.1997, C-250/95 ‘Singer’
judgment of 15.5.1997, C-118/96 ‘Safir’ judgment of 28.4.1998, C-264/96 ‘Imperial Chemical Industries’ judgment
of 16.7.1998, C-311/97 ‘Royal Bank of Scotland’
judgment of
6.6.2000.

judgment of 29.4.1999, C-35/98 ‘Verkooijen’

(2) Cases C-270/83 Commission v France, judgment of 28.1.1986 y C-398/95 SETTG, judgment of 5.6.1997.

(2003/C 242 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2319/02

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Application of national competition law in Slovakia in accordance with EU law

As part of the EU accession process, Slovakia has undertaken to bring its laws gradually into line with the
acquis communautaire. This applies in particular to competition law.

C 242 E/18

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

A few weeks ago, Slovakia’s Supreme Court quashed a decision on a merger between several breweries and
referred it to the competition authority (Protimonopolny Urad). The stated reason was apparently that
market shares had not been calculated correctly. Even before the original decision, concern had repeatedly
been expressed about the substantial degree of concentration within the Slovakian beer market.

How does the Commission intend to provide the support required to ensure that Slovakia applies all
relevant national competition law provisions and procedures in accordance with EU law?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The Commission is monitoring the alignment with and implementation of Community competition rules
in Slovakia, both in the context of the Europe Agreement and in relation to the on-going Union accession
process. As far as legislation is concerned, the Slovak Act on the Protection of Competition covers the
main principles of Community antitrust rules regarding restrictive agreements, abuse of dominant position
and merger control. This Act was substantially amended in February 2001, after consultations with the
Commission. The Act in its amended form makes the Slovak legislative framework for anti-trust, including
mergers, to a large extent compatible with the substantive competition provisions of the acquis.

As for administrative capacity, the Anti-Monopoly Office is the competition authority responsible in
Slovakia for the application of the national competition law provisions and procedures in accordance with
Community law. The Commission finds that this office is functioning well, with a good track record and a
continued high level of staff training. In order to support the Slovak authorities in properly applying the
relevant competition rules, the Commission frequently provides the Slovak authorities with technical
assistance on an ad hoc basis.

(2003/C 242 E/024)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2365/02

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Slaughter of baby seal pups on the White Sea, Russia

Will the Commission please state how many baby seal pups were clubbed to death on the White Sea in
the year 2001? Further, will the Commission please undertake to raise the matter with the Russian
authorities at the earliest opportunity?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 August 2002)

The treatment of baby seals in the White Sea has been an ongoing concern in recent years. The
Commission has raised the issue with the Russian authorities on a number of occasions in the context of
its Partnership and Co-operation Agreement, and will continue to do so.

The Commission has no information about the numbers of seal pups which have died in the White Sea,
nor about the reasons for such deaths. The Russian authorities have been approached, but have so far
indicated that they themselves do not have this information.