WRITTEN QUESTION E-3317/02 by Jan Mulder (ELDR)and Herman Vermeer (ELDR) to the Commission. Lawfulness of a ban on vehicle movements at night in Austria.
Date: 2002-11-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, application of EU law, commercial vehicle, common transport policy, floriculture, free movement of goods, horticulture, interpretation of the law, restriction on competition, road transport, transport regulations

C 268 E/28

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

has issued Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of
Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (1), hereafter Block
Exemption Regulation, which exempts certain restrictive vertical agreements from the application of
Article 81(1), provided the supplier or buyer has less than 30 % of the relevant market.

The Commission may withdraw the benefit of the said Block Exemption Regulation if, in a particular case,
it finds that access to the relevant market or competition within the relevant market is restricted by the
cumulative effect of parallel networks of similar vertical restraints implemented by competing suppliers. In
addition, the Commission may, by means of regulation, declare that where parallel networks of similar
vertical restraints cover more than 50 % of a relevant market, the Block Exemption Regulation shall not
apply to all vertical agreements containing specific restraints in that market.

The Commission wishes to stress that also in the field of watches, it can and will address any restriction of
competition using Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, provided such restriction has an appreciable effect
on trade between Member States.

The Commission does not consider that the particularities of the watch manufacturing industry justify the
adoption of a Block Exemption Regulation applying specifically to watches. In particular, the Commission
considers that environmental and safety issues directly related to the repair and maintenance of motor
vehicles cannot, as such, be transposed to watches.

The Commission is aware of the commercial practice being developed in the Swiss watch manufacturing
industry and currently is examining whether a watch manufacturer’s refusal to supply spare parts to
independent watchmakers may violate Community competition law, including Article 82 of the EC Treaty,
especially in cases where the watch manufacturer is not located in the Union.

(1) OJ L 336, 29.12.1999.

(2003/C 268 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3317/02

by Jan Mulder (ELDR)
and Herman Vermeer (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Subject: Lawfulness of a ban on vehicle movements at night in Austria

Is the Commission aware of the ban on movements at night between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. between
1 October and 1 April which the Austrian Government recently introduced for goods vehicles of more
than 7,5 tonnes on the A12 between Kundl (at kilometre 20,369 near Wörgl) and Ampass (at kilometre
86,780 near Innsbruck)?

Austria says that it has taken the measure to reduce the strain on the environment along that route.
Accordingly, movements by vehicles with a NOX discharge level below 3,5 g/kWh are exempted from the
measure. The transport of highly perishable foodstuffs and periodicals such as newspapers plus emergency
shipments of medicines are also exempted from the scope of the measure. Exemptions for flowers and
ornamental plant products, which are usually also perishable, cannot be expected from the Austrian
Government.

As a result of the measure, serious economic damage is being done to the ornamental plant sector as a
whole, since products are arriving late at their destinations. A typical feature of the sector is the fact that, if
the transport chain is interfered with or slowed down, there is a quantifiable impact on product quality
and, hence, on prices obtained.

To what extent is this Austrian measure affecting the trans-European network compatible at all with
European law and the principle of free movement of goods it lays down? The measure would furthermore
appear to discriminate against non-Austrian hauliers’ transit movements.

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/29

Is the Commission of the opinion that the introduction of this measure may distort competition between
Austrian ornamental plant exporters and ornamental plant exporters in other Member States, given that
products grown in Austria can reach the market the next day while, because of the new arrangements,
non-Austrian exporters need at least one more day?

Is the Commission prepared to inform the Austrian authorities of its answer to this question and, possibly,
take further action?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2003)

The Commission is aware of the problem the Honourable Members have raised regarding the ban on night
movements of heavy goods vehicles on the Inntal motorway in Austria between Kundl and Ampass.

In 1998, the Commission submitted a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council (1) on a transparent system of harmonised rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicles involved
in international
transport on the trans-European network (TEN). As the text was not adopted, the
Commission presented an amended proposal in November 2000 (2) which Parliament approved in July
2002. On that occasion, the Commission accepted most of the amendments adopted by Parliament at first
reading, including the exemption of the transport of flowers and horticultural products from the scope of
the Directive. An amended proposal is currently being drafted.

Accordingly, as the legislation has not yet been adopted and there are no harmonised common rules
regarding restrictions on the movement of heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport,
measures such as that adopted by the President of Tyrol can be examined only against the general
principles of Community law and other specific provisions which may apply. The Commission will
therefore assess this measure against the criteria of non-discrimination, proportionality, the free movement
of goods and any common environmental rules which may apply. The application of these criteria should
prevent any form of discrimination, including that referred to in the written question.

(1) COM(98) 115 final, OJ C 198, 24.6.1998.
(2) COM(2000) 759 final, OJ C 120 E, 24.4.2001.

(2003/C 268 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3319/02

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: EDF (cid:1) financing salvaging of the vessel ‘Le Joola’

(22 November 2002)

Senegal is receiving EUR 209 million from the 9th EDF. Out of that sum, transport and infrastructure
improvements, inter alia, have to be financed. Re-establishing the ferry link between Ziguinchor/Karabane
and Dakar is of great economic importance to the Casamance region, in the south of Senegal, and to the
country in general. Travelling overland is too dangerous, and travelling through The Gambia is virtually
impossible.

This grant could possibly be used to salvage the ‘Le Joola’: it covers re-establishment of transport facilities.
The boat is now moored at a location which is hazardous for Senegalese fishing vessels and other
shipping. Furthermore, the Senegalese Government itself has stated that it regards salvaging the ‘Le Joola’
as a priority.

Does the Commission agree that salvaging the ‘Le Joola’ is necessary in order to restore infrastructure in
the region?