WRITTEN QUESTION E-0172/03 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Equitable Life.
Date: 2003-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, associated action for damages, bankruptcy, competence of the Member States, consumer protection, financial legislation, indemnification, infringement of EU law, insurance company, life assurance, supervisory body

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/39

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Under Union competition law, prices cannot be fixed in a concerted manner, that is by agreement,
decision or concerted practices between undertakings (Article 81 of the EC Treaty). For any intervention
under Article 81, an allegation of collusive behaviour would need to be substantiated with evidence.
The indication in the written question by the Honourable Member that the amount of the charges ‘varies
greatly according to the bank concerned’, seems to indicate that there is no such collusion.

Article 82 of the EC Treaty prohibits the abuse of a dominant position. In assessing possible dominance,
account is taken of factors such as market share, the presence in the market of credible competitors and
other aspects which may allow the firms involved to avoid competition. On the basis of the information
available to the Commission, no individual bank has a dominant position on the market for current
accounts in Italy. Given that allegedly most Italian banks are charging high fees for the closure of accounts,
Article 82 might be applied if collective dominance could be established. However, the Commission has no
elements to suggest that the majority of Italian banks do not compete amongst each other and are not
exposed to actual or potential competition from others on the market for current accounts.

Furthermore, the Commission would point out that Community competition law applies where trade
between Member States may be appreciably affected. It appears from the information provided that the
competition issues are mainly related and confined to the Italian market; as a result
the National
Competition Authority (which for the banking sector is the Banca d’Italia) would seem to be better placed
to assess the competition concerns raised in the question. The Commission has informed the Banca d’Italia
of the concern raised.

(2003/C 280 E/040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0172/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject: Equitable Life

Has the Commission conducted a full investigation into the role the UK Government played in the

1.
fall of Equitable Life? If not, why not, and if so what were the findings?

Does the Commission believe that

2.
insurance, in its handling of the Equitable Life scandal?

the UK Government has breached EU regulations on life

3.
If the UK Government is found to be in breach of EU legislation on life insurance, will the
Commission press the UK Government to pay compensation to the Equitable Life customers? What
limitation period (time limit for bringing legal claims) will apply to compensation claims?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

As the Commission indicated in its response to Written Question E-2415/01 by Mr Ford (1), the
1.
Commission is aware of the difficulties confronting policyholders of Equitable Life. The Commission has
not conducted an investigation into the role of the British Government. The Commission is aware the
British Government has announced a full independent enquiry, headed by Lord Penrose, to examine the
circumstances leading to these difficulties

At the present time, the Commission is not aware of any infringement of the Community insurance

2.
directives in connection with Equitable Life.

C 280 E/40

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

The Commission has no direct role in the supervision of individual

insurance undertakings in
3.
Member States.
In fact, neither the EC Treaty nor Community insurance directives confer specific
supervisory powers upon the Commission, nor does the Commission authorise and supervise undertakings
wishing to write insurance business.

It falls under the responsibility of each Member State to organise and effect this national supervisory
responsibility (see e.g. Article 8 of the so called ‘Third Life Insurance Directive’, i.e. Council Directive 92/
96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the co-ordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EC and 90/619/EEC (2) and Articles 16,
laws,
17, 18 and 23 of Council Directive 79/267/EEC of 5 March 1979 on the co-ordination of
regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of direct life
assurance (3)).

Where an aggrieved party considers that national supervisory authorities have not properly respected the
requirements of the relevant Community Directives, redress may be sought by application to national
courts. In fact, national courts are competent to analyse whether a national supervisory authority, when
carrying on its supervisory functions, has complied with the supervisory law. They can also take
appropriate measures in order to ensure the respect of the law. Furthermore, in such cases it is for the
internal legal order of each Member State to designate the competent courts and lay down the detailed
procedural rules for legal proceedings intended fully to safeguard the rights which individuals may derive
from Community law (4). In these conditions, the time limit for bringing legal claims for compensation is
determined by national law.

(1) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002.
(2) OJ L 360, 9.12.1992.
(3) OJ L 63, 13.3.1979.
(4) See Judgement of the Court of 19 November 1991, Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v Italian

Republic, Joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, European Court reports 1991 page I-5357.

(2003/C 280 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0191/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(31 January 2003)

Subject: The increasing extent to which US criteria are being put forward for acceptance or refusal of new

Member States by the EU

1.
Is the Council still of the view that, together with Slovenia, other countries of the Western Balkans
created from the former Yugoslav Federation should be offered the opportunity, if they wish, to become
Member States of the EU on the basis of the ‘Copenhagen criteria’ applied to all the candidate countries?

2.
Can the Council confirm that the US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, Pierre-Richard
Prosper, currently on a visit to the Western Balkan states, is demanding that Bosnia-Hercegovina and
Serbia hand over the former President and former commander of the army of the Bosnian Serb Republic
to the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague?

3.
Is the Council familiar with reports suggesting that the states referred to in question 2 are being
threatened by the Ambassador-at-Large not only with a reduction in US financial assistance and opposition
to their becoming members of international organisations of which the USA itself is a member, if they fail
to hand over the persons concerned promptly, but also with being refused membership of the EU?

Does the Council agree that punishing war criminals, however desirable this may be, is not a special

4.
precondition that may be imposed by a country outside the EU for accession to the EU?

5.
Has the Council noted that the USA has already interfered in the issue of the accession of new
Member States to the EU by pressing, contrary to the line being pursued, for Turkey to be swiftly accepted
without conditions?