WRITTEN QUESTION E-0266/03 by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Monopoly held by copyright collecting societies.
Date: 2003-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accession to the European Union, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, copyright, freedom to provide services, inter-company agreement, restriction on competition

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/175

(2003/C 222 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0265/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Council

(6 February 2003)

Subject: Mismanagement at Europol

In its Internet edition of 22 January 2003, Stern magazine reports irregularities in the management of
Europol and breaches of its financial regulations. For example, a former high-ranking Europol employee is
said to have received a settlement of EUR 280 000, for which there was no legal basis.

Can the Council state from which Member State this employee was seconded to Europol and what position
he held?

Is it correct that in this high-ranking employee’s area of responsibility there had been incidences of fraud
and falsification of documents in connection with the purchase of computer systems?

Has the Council granted discharge in spite of the irregularities in management described in the Europol
audit report? If so, why?

Can the Council forward me a copy of the previously confidential audit report, now that the document is
clearly already in the hands of journalists?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

At its January 2003 meeting the Article 36 Committee decided, before submitting Europol’s discharge in
respect of its 2001 budget to the Council, to request Europol to forward further information regarding the
comments made in the audit report referred to by the Honourable Member. This information was
presented by the Europol representative at the meeting of the Committee on 19/20 February 2003. Since
the Europol Directorate has undertaken to improve the management system so as to avoid further financial
irregularities arising, the Article 36 Committee decided to recommend that the Council grant a discharge
for the 2001 Europol budget.

At its meeting on 18 March 2003, the Council gave a discharge to the Director of Europol in respect of
implementation of the 2001 Europol budget.

The Council, however, wishes to point out that the Europol budget is financed by the Member States and
that Europol is answerable for its financial management to the representatives of the Governments of the
Member States only.

(2003/C 222 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0266/03

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Monopoly held by copyright collecting societies

(6 February 2003)

In the Member States of the European Union there are national collecting societies, which administer
copyright and related rights, including exploitation rights, in trust. The collecting societies monitor public
events and collect the agreed royalties. In order to administer copyright law abroad, reciprocal contracts
have been concluded by the collecting societies in each individual Member State. According to these
contracts, each national collecting society also acts for foreign collecting societies in its home country,
representing foreign copyright owners and collecting the royalties, which are then considered in both
countries’ calculations. These territorially exclusive reciprocal contracts mean that, in each Member State,
performance rights can be bought only through an intermediary. There is no competition, which leads to a
steady rise in fees.

C 222 E/176

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Using PHARE and TACIS funds, the European Commission has launched a programme in the accession
countries for copyright protection, one of the aims of which is to create a functioning system for this
purpose.

1. What is the Commission’s position on the monopoly held by the collecting societies?

In constructing a legal

2.
Commission encouraging the emergence of such monopolies?

framework for copyright protection in the accession countries,

is the

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

The monopolies held by collecting societies have, on a number of previous occasions, been subject to
Commission scrutiny. Both the Commission and the Court of Justice have considered that, in specific
cases (1), some of the collecting societies’ practices can restrict competition. At the same time, it is generally
acknowledged that the societies in question play an important role in administering copyright and related
rights, particularly because they are able to offer their members and users a ‘one-stop shop’, which
considerably facilitates access to works and other protected objects. As regards the reciprocal agreements,
these make it possible for the societies to offer a world-wide catalogue to users, provided that they are
compatible with competition law (2).

Furthermore, in view of the very strong links between competition aspects and the rules of the internal
market, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it has been studying the issue of the
management of intellectual property rights, and collective management in particular, for several years. It
considers that collective management must be fully effective within the internal market and is therefore
drafting a communication on the management of intellectual property rights. The communication will take
stock of the situation in the sector, the questions raised and possible answers.

As for the second point raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission would point out that
Article 295 of the EC Treaty stipulates that ‘this Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member
States governing the system of property ownership’. Whilst the existence of intellectual property rights
cannot be called into question, it is nonetheless the Commission’s role to ensure that the exercise and
administration of these rights do not conflict with the rules of competition and of the internal market.
Moreover, the Commission would like to make it clear that, insofar as collecting societies are needed for
the effective exercise of certain intellectual property rights and that there are very often no other legal or
de facto solutions for issuing operating licences, it considers the existence of such entities to be useful
within the Community as well as in the accession countries, provided that the activities of these entities are
well regulated by certain specific legal rules and are subject to supervision by the competent authorities,
particularly those which have been set up for this purpose and competition authorities.

(1) GEMA, Commission Decision of 2 June 1971 (cid:1) OJ L134, 10.6.1971; Tournier, Case 395/87, judgment of the
Court of Justice of 13 July 1989; Lucazeau, Cases 110/88, 241/88, 242/88, judgment of the Court of Justice of
13 July 1989.

(2) See, for example, the Commission Decision of 8 October 2002 in Case 38 014 IFPI Simulcasting, which can be

consulted on: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/decisions/38014/en.pdf.

(2003/C 222 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0270/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Council

(6 February 2003)

Subject: Loss of jobs on the borders with CEECs

The accession of the Central and Eastern European Countries, scheduled for May 2004, will inevitably
result in the loss of hundreds of jobs in the border services that have until now handled customs
operations, transport and related services.

On certain borders, such as Italy’s eastern border with Slovenia, unemployment will hit over 90 % of those
at present employed in the forwarding sector and services relating to it, and will also have a range of
knock-on effects.