WRITTEN QUESTION E-3122/02 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Boycott of European dot-coms in the United States.
Date: 2002-10-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, United States, advertising, common commercial policy, electronic commerce, market access, restriction on competition, trade dispute

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/69

In this sense, Recital 10 of the Framework Decision clarifies that ‘nothing in this Framework Decision may
be interpreted as being intended to reduce or restrict fundamental rights or freedoms such as the right to
strike, freedom of assembly, of association or of expression’. The Commission opinion is to be extremely
cautious when proposing to incriminate acts on terrorist grounds, as a very extensive conception, contrary
to the ‘de minimis’ principle, could put fundamental rights at stake.

(1) OJ L 164, 22.6.2002.

(2003/C 161 E/073)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3119/02

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: EU funding of Greek judicial and prison services

(24 October 2002)

Are any European Community funds made available to the Greek authorities in support of the Greek
judicial or prison services?

If so, would the Commission please provide full details?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2002)

The Community does not directly finance the setting up of services such as those mentioned by the
Honourable Member in the Member States.

The Commission has co-financed projects under the cooperation programmes of Title VI of the Treaty on
European Union, aimed at encouraging judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Grotius) and preventing
organised crime (Falcone); a list of these projects is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat General.

Within the Greek Community Support Framework (CSF) 2000-2006,
in particular the Operational
Programme (OP) Information Society measure on ‘Electronic government’ for services to the public (Union
participation: EUR 271 million, or 75 % of the public expenditure of the measure), there is a provision to
support projects in the judicial sector, amongst other sectors. In particular, this measure may co-finance
actions in the field of upgrading the services of the Greek Ministry of Justice such as Judicial Records and
statistical data on criminality.

Although a call for proposals has been made by the Greek authorities, no project proposals have been
received yet by the managing authority of the above-mentioned programme.

(2003/C 161 E/074)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3122/02

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Boycott of European dot-coms in the United States

(30 October 2002)

For about four months United States companies specialising in both Internet and conventional sales and
publicity have been refusing to provide services to European companies selling on-line, in order to prevent
them from selling their products in the United States.

The Spanish company Barrabes.com, as well as French and Danish companies which do a large percentage
of their business in the United States, have seen their sales slump drastically as a result of this boycott.

C 161 E/70

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

The boycott also extends to both United States and European equipment suppliers, who will be unable to
meet the orders placed with them this season because of pressures from across the Atlantic.

Similarly, anti-competitive measures are also beginning to surface in the United Kingdom, where
advertising for these companies has been surprisingly rejected by specialist publications.

Bearing in mind that dot-coms operate on much more reduced timescales than conventional companies
and that, if it takes the Commission years to resolve this dispute, these companies will have suffered
irreparable damage, what steps will the Commission take to ensure free competition with an important
trading partner such as the United States? What will it do to protect these companies until the dispute is
settled? What compensatory measures will be adopted to help companies of this kind?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

The Honourable Member refers to a situation where American companies allegedly refuse to provide
services to European on-line companies in order to prevent them from selling their products in the United
States. In these circumstances European competition rules can not be applied. It is necessary for the
applicability of the European competition rules that the anti-competitive behaviour either affects trade
between Member States or that a dominant position exists in a substantial part of the common market.
Therefore, a possible boycott organised by private companies in the United States and preventing on-line
or internet sales by European companies to customers located in the United States does not fall into the
jurisdiction of the Commission under the Community competition rules. As regards the reference to
anticompetitive measures surfacing in the United Kingdom, the Honourable Member is kindly asked to
provide information on the precise nature of the activities in question in order to enable the Commission
to assess the situation.

Nevertheless, there may be a trade issue, in terms of access to the United States market: in order to assess
such an issue, the Commission would need to know whether there is any government measure involved,
which products and services are exactly at stake, what actions have been taken by the European companies
under American law. The Commission notes that if there is no government measure involved, it will be
difficult to make arguments but this would point further to the need to address competition issues in
international forums, in particular in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). In this respect, the Honourable
Member is also kindly asked to provide information on the precise nature of the activities in question in
order to enable the Commission to assess the situation.

(2003/C 161 E/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3152/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: The European Union and the multinational nature of the Spanish state

The 1978 Spanish Constitution stipulates that the Spanish state is made up of nationalities and regions. If
Spanish society and the country’s institutions were to take a democratic decision,
in accordance with
constitutional rules, to adopt a constitution whereby Spain would be deemed to be a multinational state (cid:1)
without detracting from its statehood (cid:1) the recognition of its internal diversity would be enhanced. Under
the Treaties, would statehood of this kind be compatible with Spain’s membership of the European Union?

Would the EU have to agree to a change in the structural organisation of a Member State along the lines
described above?