WRITTEN QUESTION E-3910/02 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Discriminatory nature of vehicle financing in Finland.
Date: 2003-01-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Finland, consumer credit, consumer protection, credit institution, financial legislation, free movement of goods, motor car, restriction on competition

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/33

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

The Commission notes with concern that Tunisia continues to be intolerant of dissidents and human rights
freedom of association and
activists. Despite certain encouraging signs towards the end of 2002,
expression are still not sufficiently tolerated. The Commission is aware of the particular case of Judge
Mokhtar Yahiaoui and its recent repercussions and has raised the matter with the Tunisian authorities
without, however, receiving any significant information.

Concerning the economic and social situation in Tunisia, the Commission encourages and supports the
reform efforts of the Tunisian Government and, here, there have been significant structural improvements,
particularly by comparison with the situation in the region as a whole. Although 2002 was difficult for the
economy (fourth consecutive year of drought, the fallout on tourism of the Djerba attack), the underlying
economic indicators are sound. On the social side there have been a number of remarkable gains (access to
housing, guaranteed minimum wage, social welfare fund) which makes Tunisia one of the most advanced
of the Southern Mediterranean countries. However,
fragile and the Commission
continues to monitor the situation carefully.

the balance is still

The European Union’s policy with regard to Tunisia,
formulated by the Member States and the
Commission in the forums designated for the purpose in the Treaty, is evolving constantly in the light of
the political and economic situation. In particular, the policy takes account of the essential elements
regarding democracy and human rights laid down in the Association Agreement, and also of Tunisia’s
other international commitments.

(2003/C 280 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3910/02

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Discriminatory nature of vehicle financing in Finland

(14 January 2003)

The Finnish vehicle import regulations have recently been amended to prevent them impeding competition
and discriminating against private and/or parallel importers. In practice, however, the individual consumer
still has to fall back on traditional importers dealing in given makes only because financing agreements are
at present impossible to obtain unless cars are purchased through such dealers. The biggest financial
institutions operating in Finland are Nordea and OPR, and there are several smaller providers as well.
However, in reality they all appear to be following the same line of conduct.

Is the Commission aware of the situation in Finland regarding the vehicle financing market and does it
oversee the manner of giving effect to competition in this area? Does it consider the prevailing practice to
be in accordance with EU competition laws and what action does it intend to take? Do other Member
States have similar practices that might obstruct the implementation of Commission decisions to liberalise
competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

The Commission has not been made aware of any difficulties regarding the market for financing of the
purchase of new motor vehicles in Finland. The Commission is, therefore, not in a position to assess
whether or not
the practice described by the Honourable Member is compatible with Community
competition rules.

Based on the information provided, it seems that the problem described by the Honourable Member relates
to the behaviour of Finnish financial institutions. In such a case it is in the first place the task of the
Finnish competition authority to take action based on Community competition rules or on Finnish
competition law.

C 280 E/34

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

The Finnish competition authority has informed the Commission that, so far, it has not received any
formal complaints in relation to this matter. However, it has assured the Commission that it will continue
to monitor the situation closely, also in light of the forthcoming entering into force of the amended
Finnish tax regulation, which should improve the situation for parallel importers.

The Commission is not aware of any similar practices in other Member States.

(2003/C 280 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0002/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(16 January 2003)

Subject: Condemnation of Mr Nguyen Khac Toan

Mr Nguyen Khac Toan, 47, was sentenced on December 20, 2002 to 12 years in prison and three years’
probationary detention by the People’s Court in Hanoi in a trial which lasted less than one day. He was
charged with ‘espionage’ (Art. 80 of the Criminal Code). The Communist Party’s official mouthpiece ‘Nhan
Dan’ (The People) stated that he had ‘slandered and denigrated the executives of the Party and State’ by
providing information to ‘exiled reactionaries’ overseas. The trial was closed to the public. His lawyer was
only able to meet his client twice before the trial (on 16 and 19 December), and was not allowed to speak
to him in private. Born in Hanoi in 1955, he was formerly a soldier in the North Vietnamese Army and he
is presently a businessman. Over the past two years, following demonstrations in Hanoi staged by farmers
protesting against state confiscation of land, he had helped farmers’ representatives to draft petitions to the
National Assembly. He had also imparted information on these demonstrations via the Internet. He was
arrested on 8 January. Police searched his home and confiscated several documents. He was detained in the
notorious B 14 (Thanh Liet) prison. This extremely harsh sentence against Nguyen Khac Toan is one more
episode in a new crackdown against dissenting voices in Vietnam. Le Chi Quang was sentenced to four
years in prison on 8 November 2002. Dr Pham Hong Son, journalist Nguyen Vu Binh and professor Vu
Ngoc Binh are also currently detained for using the Internet to call for peaceful political reforms. Vietnam
has recently stepped up restrictions on freedom of expression and the use of the Internet. The UN Human
Rights Committee in Geneva recently criticized these legal restrictions in their review of Vietnam’s
implementation of
in July 2002. The UN
Committee also criticised Vietnam’s loosely-worded national security legislation, including offences such as
‘espionage’, which criminalises activities that are perfectly legal under international law.

the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Is the Commission informed about the condemnation of Mr Nguyen Khac Toan? Has the Commission
formally asked to be allowed to attend the trial? What is the Commission’s evaluation of this intensified
repression against democracy activists in Vietnam and does the Commission consider that
this is
compatible with the strengthening of its cooperation policy with this country?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

The Commission is aware of the trial and condemnation of Mr Nguen Khac Toan. The Commission’s
Delegation in Vietnam, together with the Diplomatic Missions of the Member States, follows closely the
human rights situation in Vietnam, including the cases of Mr Toan as well as of the other persons of
concern mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission did not request to be present at the trial of Mr Toan, nor was it informed in advance of
its date and place. The trial of Mr Toan, as correctly mentioned by the Honourable Member, like other
trials of
the same kind against dissidents, has been closed to the public as well as to diplomatic
representatives.