WRITTEN QUESTION E-3261/02 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission. Capacity for maintaining the rule of law in the Netherlands.
Date: 2002-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, Netherlands, associated action for damages, competence of the Member States, national implementing measure, offence, public order, rule of law, statistics

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?

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/51

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

1.
It is not the duty of the Commission to be aware of the precise statistics relating to offences
committed and crimes solved in the Member States, nor the decisions by national police forces not to
investigate offences notified to them. This follows from Article 33 (ex Article K.5) of the Treaty on
European Union which provides ‘This Title shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent
upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal
security.’

Pursuant to Article 33 of the Treaty on the European Union, cited above, even allowing that these

2.
statistics are accurate, it is entirely a matter for the authorities in the Netherlands.

The Treaty on the European Union requires Member States to ‘respect fundamental rights’ (Article 6)
3.
and provides sanctions in the event that a Member State is found to be in breach of that obligation
(Article 7). The fact that no investigation has been requested in relation to the Netherlands suggests that
the Netherlands is not prima facie in breach of the obligation to respect fundamental rights.

This part of the question calls for conjecture since no such ‘European judicial stability pact’ exists.
4.
The Commission is being invited to criticise the judicial system of a Member State and this is not
appropriate. It is not the role of the Commission to intervene in such cases. The Hhonourable Member
should take the matter up directly with the appropriate Dutch authorities.

(2003/C 242 E/051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3287/02

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 November 2002)

Subject: Principle of non-discrimination and respect for different cultures and traditions

A Portuguese citizen has complained that the law on registration of names currently in force in Spain (Law
40 of 5 November 1999) discriminates against the children of marriages between Spanish and Portuguese
people, since the names and order of names of the children are altered without the parents’ consent.

The problem arises when a child born of a Spanish mother or father is registered at a Spanish registry
office or consulate in order to obtain Spanish nationality. When registering the child both registry offices
and Spanish consulates alter children’s names (by changing the order of
the surnames) without
the parents’ will and without recognising identity cards, birth
authorisation, almost always against
certificates or any other Portuguese official document.

In view of the principles underpinning the European enterprise, namely a Europe where people have
freedom of movement and there is mutual recognition of educational qualifications and court judgments,
does this not constitute an infringement of a basic right, i.e. people’s right to choose what name to give
their children? Does it not constitute lack of respect for a person’s identity (name), culture and traditions (cid:1)
in this case a valued tradition which entails passing on the names of the father and grandfather?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2003)

The complaint from the Portuguese citizen to which the Honourable Member refers, and which calls the
current Registration of Names Act in Spain (Act No 40/1999 of 5 November 1999) into question, has
been received by the Commission direct. The complainant considers that Spanish legislation which
provides that parents may decide by mutual agreement the order in which their first family name shall be
transmitted to their child, discriminates against children of Portuguese citizens who also have Spanish
nationality, because, under current Spanish rules, when they are registered in Spain such children lose the
father’s last
family name, which is the one transmitted to children in Portugal. According to the
complainant, the legislation is prejudicial to such children because it entails changing their names and the
order of their names in Spanish registers, and ignores identity cards, birth certificates or any other
Portuguese official document.