WRITTEN QUESTION P-0264/03 by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Discrimination against EU investors in the Czech Republic.
Date: 2003-01-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Czechia, accession to the European Union, administrative formalities, appeal to an administrative authority, corruption, investment abroad, legal system, registration of a company, small and medium-sized enterprises

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/595

the Association Agreement

includes a general dispute settlement mechanism in case of
Ultimately,
infringements of the obligations under the agreement by either party. This system, which is comparable to
the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, foresees the recourse to independent arbitrators, whose ruling is
compulsory and backed up by trade sanctions.

is also worth mentioning that

includes a clause (Article 82) on the
It
enforcement of preferential treatment, which addresses the cases of fraud and/or the systematic lack of
administrative cooperation related to, inter alia, origin. Under certain conditions and circumstances this
may lead to temporary withdrawal of preferential benefits.

the Association Agreement

(1) Annex III, Article 31 paragraph 1: ‘Subsequent verifications of proofs of origin shall be carried out at random or
whenever the customs authorities of the importing country have reasonable doubts as to the authenticity of such
documents, the originating status of the products concerned or the fulfillment of the other requirements of this
Annex’.

(2004/C 88 E/0608)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0264/03

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Discrimination against EU investors in the Czech Republic

(30 January 2003)

Since the borders were opened, EU citizens have been attempting to set up small and medium-sized
businesses in the Czech Republic. With a view to the scheduled EU enlargement in May 2004, the Czech
Republic has undertaken to adapt to EU legal standards and establish a functioning administrative and
judicial system in order to meet the Copenhagen criteria.

Is the Commission aware of cases of discrimination against EU citizens by comparison with citizens of the
Czech Republic as regards setting up businesses and service companies?

Is it correct that the Czech legal system makes no provision for complaints against action taken by the
authorities?

Is it true that the payment of bribes can speed up the entry of firms in the commercial register by up to a
year?

Is the Commission aware of the case in Bozi Dar involving Mr Engert, who is experiencing a number of
problems owing to the fact that he runs a ski school?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that a small number of complaints have been presented
to the Commission by Union citizens or companies in connection with establishing businesses/providing
services in the Czech Republic. However, claims of discrimination are rare, most issues raised are general
problems linked to the legal business environment.

Considering that in recent years the Czech Republic has been the largest recipient of the foreign direct
investment per capita amongst the Candidate Countries, the number of complaints (cid:1) on any basis (cid:1) is
remarkably small.

Any complaints, whatever their grounds, are treated seriously and are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
The Commission is aware of imperfections in the Czech legal framework for business and highlighted
them in its Regular Reports. The current legislative framework is being further amended with new
legislation on the Act on Trades (Business Act), public procurement and bankruptcy, which is currently
under preparation and closely monitored by the Commission with a view to ensuring full alignment with
Community legislation.

C 88 E/596

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

It is not correct to say that the Czech legal system makes no provision for complaints against action taken
by the authorities. All decisions and other acts of administrative bodies (central or local government and
other entities if exercising public authority) which affect subjective rights and obligations of natural or
legal persons are in principle, subject to full judicial review, unless otherwise provided for by law. The
exceptions to this general rule,
in Act 150/2002 Coll. on Administrative Courts Procedure Code, are
relatively few, and mostly concern classified information and State security matters (e.g. decisions on
security screening (cid:1) which are important for individuals to qualify for a number of posts in civil service).

Civil Courts are competent to review decisions by administrative bodies addressing civil law, family law,
law relationships (cf. Articles 7 and 244ss. of the Civil Procedure Code),
labour law and commercial
whereas courts (in principle special panels of Regional Courts) acting as administrative courts (under the
Administrative Courts Procedure Code) have jurisdiction for all other litigation challenging decisions, illegal
infringements not constituting decisions and inaction by any public or private entity acting as an
administrative body (cf. Articles 2-4 and 65ss of Act 150/2002 Coll.).

Judicial review of administrative decisions is still a relatively new concept in the current Czech legal
environment and therefore whilst basic texts are reasonably clear,
implementation in practice can be
uneven. The Supreme Administrative Court, which should unify the case law of Regional Courts acting in
their administrative judiciary capacity is now becoming operational.

The Czech Republic also has a well-established Ombudsman’s office,
administrative affairs can be submitted.

to which complaints about

As regards the Honourable Member’s reference to bribes, the Commission does not posses any material
proof of such allegations.

Several initiatives have been taken to improve the operation of the Commercial Register, but they have
been unsuccessful for the time being. A Member of Parliament’s draft Act to privatise the Commercial
Register (to make it independent and accountable) was rejected by the Chamber of Deputies in December
2001.

Issues relating to the Commercial Register have been regularly raised by the business community (both
Czech and Community) and the Chambers of Commerce in the Czech Republic. The question of the
efficient functioning of the Commercial Registers was highlighted in the 2002 Regular Report and the
Commission continues to monitor the situation.

Finally, the Commission is not aware of the case in Bozi Dar referred to by the Honourable Member and
would be happy to consider any substantiated complaint from Mr Engert.

(2004/C 88 E/0609)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0277/03

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Soda ash imports

Will the Commission investigate the dumping of soda ash by the USA into the EU market? Further, will
the Commission support the retention of the import tariffs on this product during the future WTO round
but ensure that if tariffs do have to be removed, it is done in a phased and controlled way?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2003)

As regards the dumping of soda ash by the United States into the European market, the Commission wants
to inform the Honourable Member that anti-dumping proceedings are conducted on the basis of Council