WRITTEN QUESTION P-3498/02 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission. EC Petition 566/2000.
Date: 2002-12-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European Ombudsman, European Parliament, appeal to the Court (EU), complaint to the Commission, interinstitutional relations (EU), petition

C 192 E/118

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

(2003/C 192 E/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3498/02

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(2 December 2002)

Subject: EC Petition 566/2000

In April 2001 the Petitions Committee asked the Commission to state the grounds used in 1992/1993 to
decide why trade between Member States was not affected, after previously saying that it was. This request
was repeated in Parliament on 21 February this year. The answer has still not been received, and should be
given forthwith.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2002)

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that the only position it has expressed
when it was examining the case which is the subject of the petition in question is the one set out in a
letter of 5 February 1993 from the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Competition for the
attention of the petitioner. This letter was sent as part of the formal procedure to be followed by the
Commission when it intends to reject a complaint.

In the letter the Directorate-General
indicated ‘… the evidence shows that the trade affected by the
behaviour you have complained of is direct trade between Norway and the United Kingdom. While this
does not mean that the behaviour complained of cannot have an effect on trade between Member States,
there is no evidence in this case of any appreciable effect on such trade.’

The Commission understands that the petitioner is of the view that a different opinion was conveyed to
him at a meeting in 1989. However, even if this was so (cid:1) and the Commission is not in a position to
either reject or confirm this contention (cid:1) such statement would not have expressed the position of the
Commission but only the preliminary view of the case handler at a moment in time when the official in
question was not in possession of all factual and legal elements necessary for the assessment of the case.

It should be noted that the petitioner did not contest the said letter from the Director General and thus
opted not to request a formal Commission Decision that could have been challenged before the Court of
First Instance.

The Commission, furthermore, wants to stress that when the European Ombudsman was looking into the
Commission’s handling of
in question, he specifically examined the Commission’s
conclusion as to the issue of trade between Member States and also found ‘no instance of maladminis-
tration in relation to this aspect of the case’.

the complaint

All the above information has been set out in the Commission’s different written communications of
6 February 2001, 12 September 2001 and 19 March 2002 to the Committee on Petitions of
the
Parliament, and in its oral statement at the meeting of this committee on 21 March 2002 in reply to the
requests made by the Committee following its meeting on 21 February 2002.

(2003/C 192 E/115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3508/02

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Fiat employees not given the guarantees enjoyed by Opel employees

Fiat is likely to be taken over by General Motors and will thereby be merged with Opel.

Unlike the threat facing Fiat employees, a recent agreement drawn up between the German trade unions
and Opel protects German workers from the consequences of the current crisis in the automobile industry,
since it guarantees their jobs in the years to come.