WRITTEN QUESTION E-0476/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Government's right of veto as a minority shareholder to safeguard continuity of operations and a universal postal service in the Netherlands.
Date: 2003-02-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, application of EU law, business management, postal service, services of general interest, shareholding, veto

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/27

How can the Council prevent uncertainty about the future and impatience for a solution leading to
2.
renewed tension rather than good neighbourly relations between bordering areas inhabited by Serbs and
Albanians?

3. Will the Kosovo regime be determined in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the
inhabitants of the area concerned before any EU accession by Kosovo, or a state of which Kosovo is part?

4.
Under what circumstances and procedures and on what timescale will a decision be taken on the
future status of Kosovo? How are all the parties involved being consulted? How will the Council ensure
that this solution leads to lasting peace and democracy?

Source: De Volkskrant newspaper, 5 and 8 February 2003.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0471/03 and E-0472/03

(29 September 2003)

The Council is fully aware of the statements made by the Serbian PM Zoran Djindjic on Kosovo prior to
his assassination. It is also fully aware of the recent initiative of some members of the Kosovo Assembly to
pass a resolution on the Independence of Kosovo. In the GAERC Conclusions of 24 February 2003 the
Council ‘… urged all parties, both in Belgrade and in Pristina, to refrain from any unilateral initiatives
which were incompatible with the objective of a multiethnic and democratic Kosovo and may jeopardise
stability and the normalisation process not only in Kosovo but in the entire region’. The Secretary General/
High Representative for CFSP, Javier Solana, in direct contacts both with the authorities and in Pristina has
also reiterated and emphasised the concern of the Council about recent destabilising statements and
initiatives and urged all parties to refrain from unilateral acts.

The Council firmly believes that all aspects of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 remain valid. The final
status of Kosovo will need therefore to be addressed in due course in line with that Resolution, involving
the Government in Belgrade and the elected leaders and representatives of the local political institutions in
Pristina.

In supporting the UNMIK and the UN Secretary General’s Special Representative, the Council supports
unreservedly the ‘standards before status’ policy. This policy is an essential prerequisite to facilitation at the
appropriate time of the political process designed to determine Kosovo’s future status in accordance with
Resolution 1244. In this connection, the Council in its conclusions of 24 February 2003 gave UNMIK’s
efforts to gradually transfer remaining competencies to the provisional institutions of self-government in
Kosovo by the end of 2003, except those reserved for the SRSG under UN Security Council Resolution
1244, its full support. It also reiterated in its conclusions of 14 April 2003 the importance it attached to
the most recent initiative of the SRSG to initiate direct dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina on practical
issues of mutual interest.

(2004/C 51 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0476/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 February 2003)

Subject: Government’s right of veto as a minority shareholder to safeguard continuity of operations and a

universal postal service in the Netherlands

1.
Can the Commission confirm that it does not intend to authorise the Netherlands government, as a
minority shareholder in the former state post office PTT, later known as KPN and then TPG after the
telephone sector was split off, to continue to exercise the casting vote held by a shareholder with a golden
share, which would mean that the government would no longer have the right to veto strategic decisions,
such as take-over by another firm?

C 51 E/28

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Has the Commission taken account of the fact that a monopoly is still permitted for part of the
2.
postal service, namely the daily delivery of light items to private addresses, despite the fact that the
Commission would prefer the situation to be otherwise, so that rural and outlying areas can continue to
receive the same service as large towns and central areas and that any bankruptcy of the company would
create insoluble problems?

3.
How is this situation different from those where the Commission does allow Member States to hold
golden shares, for instance in a comparable case in Spain, on which the Advocate-General of the European
Court of Justice delivered an opinion on 6 February 2003?

4. Why did the Commission spring its demands on the Netherlands government instead of first trying
to reach an agreement with it on a legally tenable solution for the problem that had come to its attention?

Is the re-acquisition by the government of a majority of ordinary shares in TPG the only way of
5.
maintaining the right to veto strategic decisions by the company without coming into conflict with the
Commission?

Is there any way other than that described in paragraph 5 that the Netherlands government can

6.
regain the right to veto TPG’s strategic decisions without coming into conflict with the Commission?

7.
Does the Commission intend to provide the European Parliament and the Member States with full
clarification of the criteria it applies or does it now want to leave any decisions in this whole area up to
the European Court of Justice?

Source: De Volkskrant newspaper, 7 February 2003.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2003)

1.
The Commission considers that certain provisions in the articles of association of TNT Post Groep
N.V. concerning the special representation of the Dutch State on its supervisory board, which appoints
members of the firm’s board of management and has control over management policy and the general
running of the firm, are incompatible with Community legislation on the free movement of capital and
with the right of establishment. The Commission also considers that the special rights to approve certain
decisions taken by the firm’s competent bodies conferred on the holder of the golden share (the Dutch
State) are incompatible with Articles 56 and 43 of the EC Treaty. This prompted the Commission to
initiate infringement proceedings against the Netherlands, as indicated in the press release published by the
Commission on 5 February 2003.

Court of Justice case-law has established that Member States may retain a certain degree of influence in
privatised firms which provide services of public or strategic interest. However, such restrictions on the
free movement of capital must be justified either by means of the exceptions provided for in Article 58 of
the EC Treaty or by compelling reasons of general
interest, provided that the measures respect the
principles of non-discrimination and proportionality.

2.
The permanent provision of a universal postal service is defined in Directive 97/67/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of
the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (1). The
Commission notes that the special rights conferred by the golden share do not relate solely to the services
offered by the universal postal service but also apply to other postal services outside the scope of the
universal service. Monopolies are allowed only if Community law is strictly observed.

The case on which the Advocate-General of the Court of Justice gave an opinion on 6 February 2003
3.
concerned the special powers conferred on Spain by privatisation law No 5/1995 of 23 March 1995. The
Commission considers that these special powers are incompatible with the free movement of capital and
the right of establishment, which is why it decided to refer the case to the Court of Justice. The opinion
expressed by the Advocate-General does not prejudice the ruling which the Court of Justice will hand
down in this case.

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/29

On 28 July 2000, in line with the procedure provided for by Article 226 of the EC Treaty, the
4.
Commission sent a letter of formal notice concerning the special powers held by the Dutch State in TNT
Post Groep N.V. This was followed by a technical meeting with the Dutch authorities on 26 September
2000 on the offending provisions in Dutch legislation. Moreover, the important rulings handed down by
the Court of Justice on 4 June 2002, which largely confirmed the principles set out in the Commission’s
interpretative communication of 19 July 1997, were the subject of a Commission press release of the same
date.

Article 295 of the EC Treaty stipulates that ‘This Treaty shall

5.
in no way prejudice the rules in
Member States governing the system of property ownership’. Member States therefore have the right to
nationalise or to privatise. However, Court of Justice case-law has established that a decision to privatise,
for example, must be carried through in accordance with the principles of Community law, particularly
that of the free movement of capital. Consequently, while it is not the Commission’s role to comment on
the strategic and political choices of Member States regarding checks on the activities of private firms, it
does have an obligation to ensure that Community law is respected. In this connection, see also the replies
to questions 1 and 6.

As mentioned in the reply to question 1, Court of Justice case-law has established that Member States
6.
may retain a certain degree of influence in privatised firms which provide services of public or strategic
interest. However, such restrictions on the free movement of capital must be justified either by means of
the exceptions provided for in Article 58 of the EC Treaty or by compelling reasons of general interest,
provided that the measures respect the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality.

7.
To inform national authorities and economic operators in Member States of the way in which the
Commission interprets the EC Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital and on freedom of
establishment, the Commission adopted a communication on 19 July 1997 on certain legal aspects of
Community investments. The principles outlined in this communication are based essentially on the EC
Treaty and Court of Justice case-law, which remains, of course, the sole competent authority as regards the
interpretation of Community law.

The above interpretative communication deals with two basic freedoms and is all the more justified as the
provisions in question are directly applicable provisions of the EC Treaty. As the Court has often said,
provisions of this type require no implementing measures as they are sufficiently clear and unconditional
in themselves. Moreover, Community case-law confirms
the Community institutions cannot
themselves limit the exercise of basic freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty. The essential principles of
the Communication are largely confirmed by recent Court of Justice case-law (Court judgments of 4 June
2002 Commission v France, C-483/99, Commission v Belgium, C-503/99, Commission v Portugal, C-367/
98).

that

(1) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.

(2004/C 51 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0477/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(20 February 2003)

Subject: Possibility of an EU Member State allowing nuclear weapons to be used in a war in Iraq

1.
Can the Council confirm that the EU Member States that are also members of NATO have hitherto
been committed to using nuclear weapons solely against States that threaten them with their own nuclear
weapons?

2.
Does the Council look on Iraq as one of the countries which, like the United States, United Kingdom,
France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel and in future possibly North Korea, possess nuclear
weapons?