WRITTEN QUESTION P-3217/02 by Arlene McCarthy (PSE) to the Commission. Competition policy and collective management societies.
Date: 2002-11-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competition law, copyright, digital technology, management, multinational enterprise, restriction on competition

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/49

Therefore, it is up to the Member States to decide, whether they will introduce internet-voting mechanisms
for the parliamentary elections.

There have been some pilot projects on multi-channel and electronic voting in the Member States. It was,
for example, possible to vote via internet for certain local authorities at local elections of May 2002 in the
United Kingdom. However, the Commission is at the moment not aware of any Member State, or of any
candidate country, whose citizens should be able to participate to the next elections to Parliament, which
would plan pilot projects on electronic voting for the elections to the Parliament in June 2004.

the 5th Framework
the Information Society Technologies (IST) programme of
In the context of
Programme, the Commission has been supporting research and technological development (RTD) projects
on electronic democracy, including on-line voting. The RTD projects addressing the issue of on-line voting
include Cybervote (an innovative cyber voting system for Internet terminals and mobile phones), E-POLL
(Electronic polling system for remote voting operations), and EURO-CITI (European cities platform for on-
line transaction services). An accompanying measure called EVE (Evaluating practices and validating
technologies in e-Democracy and e-Voting) aims at leveraging individual efforts for common benefits in
the field of electronic democracy.

(1) Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct

universal suffrage, annexed to Decision 76/787/ECSC (cid:1) OJ L 278, 8.10.1976.

(2) Council Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom of 25 June and 23 September 2002 amending the Act concerning the
election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage (cid:1) OJ L 283, 21.10.2002.

(2003/C 242 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3217/02

by Arlene McCarthy (PSE) to the Commission

(7 November 2002)

Subject: Competition policy and collective management societies

While EU competition policy recognises the role of copyright management societies in safeguarding the
its members, does the Commission consider in the case of BIEM (Bureau
rights and interests of
Internationale des Sociétés Gérant les Droits d’Enregistrement et de Reproductions Mechaniques) that the
fixing of royalty rates at EU level, different to those operated in either Japan or in the UK, constitutes an
abuse of a dominant position?

Does the Commission believe that such exclusive rights of copyright management are being exploited in a
manner that is both restrictive to competition, contributing to unfair trading and commercial practices,
and are detrimental to the consumer?

What steps is the Commission taking to investigate such practices by BIEM?

Would the Commission agree that in light of technological and commercial developments, in particular
the practices and operations of collecting societies should be made more
digital distribution,
in line with EU
transparent
competition policy?

to identify the origin, destination and purpose of royalties charged,

that

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 2002)

The application of different royalty rates in the EU constitutes abuse of a dominant position within the
meaning of Article 82 of the EC Treaty only if the highest rates are regarded as excessive and the
differences are not justified for objective reasons. It is therefore not possible to lay down as a general and
abstract rule that there is abuse of a dominant position simply because different royalty rates are charged,
without taking account of the particular features of each case. As the Court of Justice held in Tournier and
‘Article 82 (ex 86) of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that a national copyright-
Lucazeau,

C 242 E/50

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

management society holding a dominant position in a substantial part of the common market imposes
unfair trading conditions where the royalties which it charges to discothèques are appreciably higher than
those charged in other Member States, the rates being compared on a consistent basis. That would not be
the case if the copyright-management society in question were able to justify such a difference by reference
to objective and relevant dissimilarities between copyright management in the Member State concerned
and copyright management in the other Member States’.

Both the Commission and the Court of Justice have in the past considered that, in specific cases, certain
practices of collective management societies were restrictive of competition. At the same time,
it is
generally acknowledged that the societies in question play an important role in the management of
copyright and related rights, notably because they are able to provide their members and users with a ‘one-
stop shop’ which considerably facilitates access to works and other protected objects. It is not therefore
possible to claim that
the activities of collective management societies are inherently restrictive of
competition. Such a conclusion can be reached only following an investigation into an agreement or
specific conduct.

The Commission has not launched an investigation on its own initiative into BIEM. However, it recently
received a complaint concerning BIEM. Its inquiries are still at the preliminary stage and it has not yet
adopted a position on the complaint.

The Commission considers that,
in the light of technological and commercial developments in digital
distribution in particular, the practices of collective management societies should be transparent as regards
the exploitation of copyright and related rights on the Internet. This position was clearly set out in the
recent decision on ‘Simulcasting’ of 8 October 2002 Case COMP/C2/38 104. The text of the decision is
available on the Commission’s website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/decisions/
38014/en.pdf.

Furthermore, as the competition aspects and the rules of the internal market are very closely linked, the
Commission would inform the Honourable Member that
the
management of intellectual property rights, and collective management in particular, for several years.
It considers that collective management must be fully effective within the internal market and is therefore
preparing a notice on the management of intellectual property rights. The notice will take stock of the
situation in the sector, the questions raised and possible answers.

it has been studying the question of

(2003/C 242 E/050)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3261/02

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Capacity for maintaining the rule of law in the Netherlands

Is the Commission aware that in the Netherlands the police have been notified of 1,3 million
1.
criminal offences, that only 14,6 % of them have been solved and that two thirds of the offences of which
the police are notified are not investigated at all?

Is not this state of affairs an affront to people’s sense of justice, and does it not call into question the

2.
quality of the rule of law in the Netherlands?

If the Copenhagen criteria for applicant countries were to be applied to the Netherlands, would it not

3.
face serious problems because of the above facts?

4.
If a European judicial stability pact existed, would it not be appropriate for the Netherlands to be
shown the yellow card by way of warning and for a discussion to be held between the Commission and
the Netherlands Government about these alarming facts? And ought not the capacity of the Netherlands’
judiciary to be dramatically increased in consequence?