WRITTEN QUESTION E-3057/02 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Motor vehicle block exemption regulation.
Date: 2002-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, aid for restructuring, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, distributive trades, general mechanical engineering, motor vehicle industry, vertical agreement

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/91

(2003/C 192 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3046/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 October 2002)

Subject: Definition of the Portuguese public debt

It appears that,
in reply to repeated requests from local authorities and the autonomous regions, the
Portuguese Ministry of Finance, according to widely-circulating press reports of 10/13 October 2002, has
authorised those public administrative bodies to issue ‘guarantees’ instead of registering sums as public
debt, on the grounds that such guarantees ‘cannot be defined as forming part of the debt of the “public
administration”’ (‘Diário Económico’, 10 October 2002).

Can the Commission state whether these guarantees have been taken into account in the definition of the
public debt, and, at all events, supply a reasoned answer based on the existing national accountancy
standards?

Can the Commission also take account in its reply of the criteria of transparency, coherence and rigour in
the context of the evaluation of public accounts?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

According to the rules as they are laid down in the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure and
regulation 3605/93 (1) as amended (2), debt guaranteed by entities of the general government sector do not
belong to the general government debt, as long as they are not called.

Moreover, the ESA 95, which is the manual of national accounts for the European Union, does not record
debt guaranteed in the financial balance sheets as liability for the unit granting the guarantee, except in
some very specific cases. This rule is applicable for all Member States, which report national accounts data
to Eurostat.

(1) OJ L 332, 31.12.1993.
(2) OJ L 58, 3.3.2000.

(2003/C 192 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3057/02

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2002)

Subject: Motor vehicle block exemption regulation

The Commission has now adopted the motor vehicle block exemption regulation. This has led to contracts
between car dealers and manufacturers being terminated across the EU. The new block exemption will
result in a considerable restructuring of the automobile industry and lead inevitably to closures, reopenings
and diversification.

1. Will the Commission support the restructuring process, made necessary by the new block exemption,
with accompanying measures, such as aid programmes for small and medium-sized enterprises?

In view of state aid law, what is the Commission’s position on possible restructuring aid and support

2.
measures, to be provided at national, regional or local level?

3.

Is the Commission aware of any existing programmes of this kind in the Member States?

C 192 E/92

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

1.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of
the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (1) is
designed to increase competition in the markets for the sale of new motor vehicles and for repair and
maintenance services for motor vehicles and to bring tangible benefits to European consumers. In the past,
vehicle manufacturers have been restructuring the networks for the distribution of their goods, in order to
make them more efficient. This has been and is happening independently from the Regulation.
A restructuring of the manufacturers’ networks is indeed not a pre-condition for the implementation of
the important measures foreseen in the new Regulation. The expiry of the former block exemption
imply that motor vehicle
regulation and its replacement by the new Regulation does not in itself
manufacturers have to restructure their networks. This is shown also by the fact that some manufacturers
have chosen to amend the agreements with their distributors. Other manufacturers have chosen to
terminate these agreements. Both of
independent business decisions of
manufacturers.

these developments reflect

Concerning a restructuring process in the motor vehicle industry it has, first of all, to be stated that a large
majority of economic operators directly or indirectly concerned by the Regulation are small and medium-
sized enterprises both within and outside the official manufacturers’ networks of dealers and repairers.

Specific provisions of the Regulation have the object of strengthening the commercial independence of
authorised dealers in order to allow them to develop their business and become more profitable. That is
the case, for instance, through multi-branding, i.e. the sale of more than one brand of vehicles. The same is
true as regards the possibility of a dealer in a selective distribution system to sell vehicles actively
throughout the Internal Market. Moreover, dealers are given the opportunity to specialise in the sale of
new motor vehicles or to (continue to) offer at the same time sales and after-sales services. In addition, a
manufacturer must give detailed reasons for the termination of an agreement. These provisions improve
the bargaining position of these operators vis-à-vis the manufacturers of motor vehicles.

is that

the Regulation offers former dealers the opportunity to become
Another important aspect
the manufacturer. This is very important as it should
authorised repairers within the network of
compensate at least partly the tendency of decrease in dealer numbers initiated by most manufacturers of
motor vehicles. They have been undertaking programmes to cut costs and rationalise distribution networks
in the Community. This trend began already under the previous block exemption Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to certain categories
of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (2) and is expected to continue also in the future,
regardless of the competition rules applicable to the sector.

their
With regard to independent repairers, which are not members of a manufacturer’s network,
competitive position is maintained and even enhanced through several provisions, such as the obligation
on the vehicle manufacturers to provide them with non-discriminatory access to technical information,
equipment and training. The Regulation also improves the access of independent repairers to spare parts.

It can be concluded that the Regulation itself includes provisions that strengthen the position of small and
medium-sized undertakings. The Commission does not envisage specific accompanying measures such as
aid programmes in relation with a restructuring of the motor vehicle sector.

2.
As far as possible State aid measures are concerned, the Commission will assess on a case by case
basis the compatibility of each measure, which has to be notified, with the EC Treaty, in the light of the
applicable State aid rules.

For what regards small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of
12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and
medium-sized enterprises (3) considers that investment aid to SMEs is compatible with the common
market, when the aid does not exceed the thresholds specified in the Regulation.

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/93

Proposals to grant restructuring aid to firms particularly affected would be assessed under the Community
guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (4).

The Commission is not aware of any existing programmes of restructuring aid and support measures

3.
in the Member States for the motor vehicle sector.

(1) OJ L 203, 1.8.2002.
(2) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.
(3) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.
(4) OJ C 288, 9.10.1999.

(2003/C 192 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3063/02

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 October 2002)

Subject: Transaction costs

Has the Commission conducted any research into or analysis of bank charges in the euro zone over

1.
the past 12 months? If so, can the Commission indicate what it has done?

2.
Does the Commission believe that there have been any improvements since the Commission study
released at a press conference on 24 September 2001 at which Mr Bolkestein admitted that the situation
was disappointing and that there was still too much unauthorised double charging?

Does the Commission have any information on the impact of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (1) on

3.
cross-border payments in euro?

4.

Has the Regulation brought down the cost of cross-border payments in euro within the euro zone?

5. What is the average price of a cross-border payment in euro in the euro zone?

6.

Has the cost of domestic payments in euro changed since the introduction of the Regulation?

Can the Commission provide any figures relating to individual countries within the euro zone

7.
(e.g. the cost of transfers between Germany and France or between Ireland and Italy)?

8.
Does the Commission have any information on the cost of bank transfers from euro-denominated
bank accounts outside the euro zone, to euro bank accounts inside the euro zone? If so, can it give a
breakdown of figures for each country?

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 13.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2002)

The Commission has closely monitored the application of European Parliament and Council Directive of
27 January 1997 on cross-border credit transfers (1). It commissioned several studies on price trends and
the national
the following address: http://
europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/fr/finances/payment/directives/index.htm

information is available at

transposal measures. This

In addition, as required by Article 12 of the Directive, la Commission is in the process of adopting a report
on its application in the Member States, which will subsequently be transmitted to Parliament and the
Council. It emerges from the report that, although the situation regarding double charging, has improved
significantly, the banking sector does not fully comply with the provisions of the Directive aimed at
eliminating all costs for the beneficiary (except on the express instructions of the principal). This situation
should change considerably as of 1 July 2003 with the entry into force of European Parliament and
Council Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro (2),