WRITTEN QUESTION E-1076/03 by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission. Motorola Computer Group and Wordsworth Technologies Ltd and price fixing.
Date: 2003-03-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, complaint to the Commission, distributive trades, exchange of information, information technology industry

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/31

(2004/C 70 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0897/03

by Hedwig Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject: Proposal for a Council regulation on the common organisation of the market in ethyl alcohol of
the

in particular, measures

agricultural origin (COM(2001) 101 final (cid:1) C5-0095/01)
agricultural alcohol market/Article 10

for

it

is usually family farms which run corn distilleries producing agricultural alcohol.
In Germany,
The Commission now intends to destroy these traditional agricultural production methods with the above
proposal for a regulation. This agricultural activity will suddenly and without good reason be transformed
into an industry.

A distinction must be made between the terms ‘ethyl alcohol’ and ‘spirits’. Distillates should only be classed
as ‘spirits’ when they are ready for use. Coarse and fine corn distillates are agricultural and not commercial
products.

Why does the above proposal for a regulation not distinguish between coarse and fine corn distillates on
the one hand and the finished product corn schnapps on the other?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

The Article 10 to which the Honourable Member refers provides for the application of rules on national
aid in the alcohol sector in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty. The Commission is fully aware of the
German production structure’s specific situation and a compromise solution on that article was found in
order to enable that system to operate during a ten-year transitional period. The Council therefore adopted
the Regulation (1) with the agreement of all delegations except Italy.

The Commission is of the opinion that, since distillates possess all the characteristics of spirit drinks, they
are to be classified as such even if they are not yet ready for direct human consumption. By contrast,
distillates which are used to make ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin are to be regarded as products falling
under Annex I to the EC Treaty. Korn is a spirit drink defined and protected in Community legislation (2).
There is nothing in the definition of that drink to suggest that this distillate, like the distillate of any other
spirit drink covered by that legislation (such as whisky or wine spirits) may be regarded as an agricultural
product which would become a spirit drink (ready for human consumption) and therefore a
non-agricultural product. The product which is distilled in accordance with the rules laid down in the
definitions contained in the above Regulation and which is obtained from the distillation process is to be
regarded as a spirit drink and marketed as such.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 670/2003 of 8 April 2003 laying down specific measures concerning the market in

ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin, OJ L 97, 15.4.2003.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition, description and

presentation of spirit drinks, OJ L 160, 12.6.1989.

(2004/C 70 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1076/03

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(31 March 2003)

Subject: Motorola Computer Group and Wordsworth Technologies Ltd and price fixing

I have received a letter regarding Motorola UK who have refused to accept purchase orders from
Wordsworth Technology Ltd. They believe that they are being cut out because they have identified a price
fixing scam run by the Motorola Computer Group. They have tried to source parts from Germany, but feel
they were prevented from doing so by Motorola, and their current source in Hong Kong is under the same
threat.

C 70 E/32

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

It is my understanding that Wordsworth Technologies had made a complaint to the European Commission
in January 1999 regarding Motorola’s price fixing, squeezing Wordsworth out of the market.

Has there been any progress in investigating this complaint and if so what has the outcome been?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission opened an investigation into the distribution
arrangements of Motorola Computer Group (a business division of Motorola Inc) for certain of its products
with a view to ascertaining whether these arrangements were in accordance with Articles 81 and 82 of the
EC Treaty. This investigation was opened after the Commission had received a complaint by Wordsworth
Technologies Ltd in January 1999.

The Commission has been investigating this complaint by Wordsworth Technologies Ltd actively. It has
its
sent a very significant number of formal requests for information to Motorola Computer Group,
distributors and customers as well as Wordsworth Technologies Ltd, in order to be in a position to analyse
all facts in their proper economic and legal context. It has also held various meetings with the parties in
this case, including Wordsworth Technologies Ltd.

The Honourable Member may be interested to know that Motorola Computer Group has introduced
various modifications to its distribution arrangements as a direct result of the Commission’s investigations
in this case.

The Commission is currently elaborating its final analysis of all the issues that were raised by Wordsworth
Technologies Ltd. This analysis will not only take account of the issues that Wordsworth Technologies Ltd
raised in its initial complaint but also of those raised in later correspondence,
including those the
Honourable Member is referring to, which were actually only brought to the Commission’s attention late
in 2002.

The Commission is confident that it can inform Wordsworth Technologies Ltd in the near future about the
Commission’s position in this case. Wordsworth Technologies Ltd will then be given an opportunity to
comment upon this position.

(2004/C 70 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1146/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Abolition of pension weightings

In direct and total contradiction with the statements made by the Commission representative at the
meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control on 28 November 2002 and its answer to Question
E-0088/03 (1), it is absolutely clear that the judgement of 14 December 1995 in case T-285/94 in no way
justifies the application of weightings to officials’ retirement pensions.

The issue raised by the plaintiff in paragraph 28 of the judgement has not been considered by the Court,
as paragraph 52 of the same judgement shows.

Under these circumstances, will the Commission say what disciplinary measures it intends to take in
respect of an official who has not only deliberately falsified the facts, but involved a Commissioner in
repeating this falsehood?

Given that this is the only argument put forward so far by the Commission to defend this absurd and
unfair system, will it say when it intends to abolish weightings for officials’ retirement pensions?

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 155.