WRITTEN QUESTION P-3731/02 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Report on the implementation of Directive 98/6/EC of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (price indication per unit).
Date: 2002-12-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, consumer information, overheads, publishing of prices, selling price, small retailer, unit price

8.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110 E/221

(2003/C 110 E/246)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3637/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Economic integration

Following the Commission’s answer to question E-1816/02 (1), will the Commission please note that the
question referred to the stock (not the flow) of foreign direct investment in each Member State, and will
the Commission please now answer the question posed:

Will the Commission give figures for the most recent available year, for five years previously and for ten
years previously, for the stock of quoted equities held by non-residents in each Member State of the Union
as a percentage of that Member State’s GDP, and will it in addition break down that figure into non-
resident holdings of equities held by Member State residents and by non-Member State residents?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 233.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2003)

In the International Investment Position statistics, equity stocks held by non-residents are classified as
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) stocks (if the non-resident holds at least 10 % of the equity capital of the
enterprise) or as portfolio investment stocks if this is not the case. Both types of stocks refer to quoted and
non-quoted shares. Data for Union equity stocks held by non-residents are available only for the FDI part
without distinction between quoted and non-quoted shares. They are a subset of total FDI inward stocks,
which also include stocks of FDI debt liabilities vis-à-vis non-resident parties.

All data available are given in the table sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s
secretariat. They are broken down by owner as required (intra-Union/extra-Union) and cover the period
from end-1994 to end-2000. The same kind of data is also given at the level of individual Member States,
in nearly all cases. Main exceptions are Belgium-Luxembourg and (as concerns the split between intra-
Union/extra-Union) also Spain and Ireland. For other Member States, the time series are not complete and/
or part of the distinction equity/total FDI is missing. Missing Member States are however counted in the
Union aggregate, either on the basis of non-publishable information sent by the Member States concerned,
or on the basis of Eurostat estimates made using all available information.

(2003/C 110 E/247)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3731/02

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Report on the implementation of Directive 98/6/EC of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection
in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (price indication per unit)

Directive 98/6/EC (1) made it compulsory to indicate the selling price and the unit price of products offered
to consumers. The directive should have been implemented by 18 March 2000 at the latest. Pursuant to
Article 6 of the Directive, however, a number of Member States made use of the transitional period of up
to 3 years during which firms were not required to indicate the price per unit for products other than
those sold in bulk.

Under Article 12 the Commission is required to submit a report by 18 March 2003 on the implementation
of the directive, particularly on the application of Article 6, together with a proposal.

C 110 E/222

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

By making it compulsory to display the unit price the European legislator sought to enable the consumer
to make a quick and simple comparison of prices for each product. However, this requirement involves an
excessive administrative effort for small retail stores, at any rate for those with sales areas under 400 m2,
and will have a proportionately much more serious effect on them than on larger retailers.

It is also not of much real advantage to the consumer, for two reasons. Firstly, the opportunities for
comparison in small retail shops are very limited in view of the narrow range of goods which a small shop
necessarily has on offer. Secondly, the most important factor for the consumer in deciding to patronise
this kind of shop is their proximity, rather than the price of the products sold.

When does the Commission propose to submit its evaluation report to the European Parliament?

Does the Commission consider that small retail stores should in future be completely exempted from the
obligation to show the unit price? Does not the Commission think that the imposition of this kind of
requirement on the whole of the retail trade would be incompatible with earlier commitments to stimulate
business in the EU and reduce administrative burdens?

(1) OJ L 80, 18.3.1998, p. 27.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

The Commission understands the Honourable Member’s view that it would not be wise to charge small
retail stores with unnecessary costs, although the price indication is an important element for consumer
protection.

The Commission is currently gathering information in order to prepare the report under article 12 of the
Directive 98/6/EC. In this context, the report will indeed examine the issue as to whether the obligation to
indicate the unit price constitutes a serious burden for certain small retail businesses. It is not possible, at
this stage, to anticipate the conclusions of the report, which, once finalised, will be submitted to the
Parliament and the Council.

(2003/C 110 E/248)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3775/02

by António Campos (PSE) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Common agricultural policy

On 11 October 1999, in my Written Question E-1766/99 (1), I asked the Commission for information
concerning the EAGGF Guarantee Section. The Commission’s reply of 16 December 1999 failed to supply
some of the information requested.

In order to be able to perform my duties as an MEP I require the following information to be made
available to me:

(cid:1) the total amount of money spent each year by the EAGGF Guarantee Section on the 100 largest

beneficiaries in each Member State;

(cid:1) the percentage of total EAGGF Guarantee Section spending received by each Member State and

assigned to those 100 largest beneficiaries.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 14.