WRITTEN QUESTION E-3152/02 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. The European Union and the multinational nature of the Spanish state.
Date: 2002-11-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union membership, Spain, competence of the Member States, constitution, constitutional revision, relations between the State and the regions

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?

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/71

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

It is for each Member State, in accordance with its national legal system, to organise and distribute powers
within its own structures, bearing in mind the treaties. Article 203 of the EC Treaty provides that ‘the
Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit
the government of that Member State’. The Honourable Member’s attention is also drawn to the answer by
the Commission to Oral Question H-0683/02 tabled by Ms Diez Gonzalez during question time at the
October 2002 (1) part-session of the European Parliament.

(1) Written answer of 22.10.2002.

(2003/C 161 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3155/02

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2002)

Subject: Pension rights

Is it acceptable that a primary school teacher who gives 40 years unbroken service in two European
Member States, namely the UK and the Republic of Ireland suffers from discrimination in contrast to other
workers in a similar situation, in that the teacher will not receive the full pension and end-of-service
gratuity to which forty years’ unbroken service should entitle him/her?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

The question raises two separate issues:

1.

Entitlement to Pension:

(cid:1) It is not clear from the information provided whether the person concerned is having problems
with his/her state pension, or with an occupational pension. As regards the former, Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 (1) aims to ensure that people who move do not lose out on their social
security rights. When a person reaches pensionable age he/she will receive an old age pension in
respect of each Member State where he/she has paid social insurance contributions for at least
12 months.

(cid:1) On occupational pensions, Council Directive 98/49/EC (2) offers some protection. However,

it
does not stipulate minimum vesting periods, nor are occupational pension schemes obliged to
allow members who move to another Member State to continue to make contributions. Further
information is required in order to give more specific advice.

2.

Entitlement to end-of-service gratuity:

(cid:1) The Commission considers that migrant workers’ previous periods of comparable employment
acquired in another Member State must be taken into account by Member States’ administrations
for determining professional advantages (e.g. salary, grade)
in the same way as applies to
experience acquired in their own system (Article 39 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Regulation
(EEC) No 1612/68 (3));

(cid:1) In the view of

the Commission an end-of-service gratuity could be considered as such a
professional advantage; more information about this gratuity would be necessary in order to
evaluate this in-depth;