WRITTEN QUESTION E-0230/03 by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission. Implications of enlargement for jobs of customs agents.
Date: 2003-02-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accession to the European Union, customs inspection, customs profession, external border of the EU, job cuts

C 88 E/320

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2003)

The Commission is asked how it intends to remove obstacles to the free movement of gold products
legally manufactured, hallmarked and marketed in a Member State and what steps have been taken to
bring an end to breaches of article 28 of the EC Treaty in this area.

The first point to make is that, in the past, harmonising legislation in this area was proposed by the
Commission but never came to fruition. Pending any harmonisation of the rules relating to hallmarking,
obstacles to the free movement of gold products within the Union fall to be examined under articles 28 to
30 of the EC Treaty.

In the early 1990s, several
infringement cases concerning obstacles to trade in precious metals were
brought against various Member States including France, Ireland and the United Kingdom. However, in the
light of the ruling of the European Court in the Houtwipper case (Case-293/93) delivered on 15 September
1994, these cases were closed. In Houtwipper, the Court expressly rejected the argument of the German
government that:

a Member State may not prohibit the marketing in its territory of articles of precious metal hallmarked
by the producers themselves in the Member State of exportation, where compliance with the law, and
consequently, consumer protection and the safeguarding of fair trading are assured by a range of
measures capable of ensuring that the hall mark functions as a guarantee.

Instead the Court said that, in the absence of Community rules, the Member States had a wide discretion,
and it was for them to choose the appropriate measures to deal with the risk of fraud. The choice between
prior control by an independent body and a scheme permitting hallmarking by manufacturers, backed up
by training, quality rules and sanctions was a matter for the legislative policy of the Member States; the
Court would review that choice only where there had been ‘a manifest error of assessment’.

In its judgement in Commission v. Ireland (case C-30/99), delivered on 21 June 2001, the Court chose not
to revisit ‘the question whether a hallmark struck by a manufacturer or his laboratory offers sufficient
guarantees of independence to be considered equivalent to a hallmark struck by an independent body’.

The Commission recently received new complaints against the three Member States referred to in the
question, alleging that their policy of failing to recognise hallmarks struck by the manufacturer in the
context of a scheme of accreditation, monitoring and surveillance is contrary to article 28 of the EC Treaty.
The Commission is currently examining whether the refusal to recognise such marks might constitute ‘a
manifest error of assessment’ by the authorities of these Member States.

(2004/C 88 E/0325)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0230/03

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Implications of enlargement for jobs of customs agents

Analyses show that almost 22 000 customs agents stand to lose their jobs in 2004; 20 000 of those lost
jobs will be in the Central and Eastern European countries as a result of enlargement. Some customs agents
are therefore already looking for other employment because they know that most of them will lose their
jobs as of May 2004. This situation may give rise to a number of practical problems as customs agents are
responsible for ensuring that both the EU’s and the applicant countries’ customs regulations are complied
with as a condition of goods crossing the EU’s external borders.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/321

What steps will the Commission take to safeguard the EU’s cross-border trade with the applicant countries
through to 1 May 2004? Will the Commission take measures to provide customs agents with an incentive
to remain in their jobs until enlargement takes place? Can the Commission envisage introducing an
arrangement similar to the one that applied in 1992 for the transition to the internal market? If not, how
will the Commission resolve this emerging problem?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

As the Commission has already indicated, in its reply to Mr Lisi’s Written Question E-2488/02 (1), it does
not intend to introduce an arrangement similar to the one applied in 1992 for the transition to the
internal market. In its reply to the above Question, the Commission pointed out the options available to
Member States under the Structural Funds and the guidelines adopted for State aid.

(1) OJ C 52 E, 6.3.2003, p. 179.

(2004/C 88 E/0326)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0267/03

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 February 2003)

Subject: Abuse of a dominant position and misleading advertising by the airlines Spanair and Iberia (Spain)

The consumer group Unión de Consumidores de Asturias has denounced the latest advertising campaign
by the airlines Iberia and Spanair as concealing important information from the consumer (e.g. having to
spend the Saturday night at the destination, stay for a maximum of ten days, book their tickets at least
four days before departure, etc.) as being a violation of Directive 97/55/EC (1) on misleading advertising.

Moreover, Unión de Consumidores de Asturias has accused these airline companies and Air Nostrum of
ticket price fixing, which would constitute an abuse of a dominant position and a contravention of
Article 82 of the EC Treaty on the exploitation of dominant positions.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

What measures will it adopt, as guardian of the Treaties, to ensure compliance with Community law in the
case in point?

(1) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997, p. 18.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

The Commission has become aware of a number of complaints from consumer organisations about certain
misleading advertising practices in the air transport sector. Indeed, a key aspect of Community consumer
and transport policy is that passengers should be entitled to receive comprehensive and clear information.
information in adverts for air transport services may infringe Community law.
Omission of essential
Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 (1) as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of
the
Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 concerning misleading advertising so as to include
comparative advertising, provides an effective tool to take action against misleading practices. The practical