WRITTEN QUESTION P-1419/03 by Véronique Mathieu (EDD) to the Commission. Fines imposed on French farmers' unions.
Date: 2003-04-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, beef, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, competition law, farmer, fine, infringement of EU law, minimum price, sanction (EU), trade union

C 51 E/86

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Commission presented its proposal for the above Regulation on 29 September 1988. The proposal
was discussed at Working Party level in the Council between 1988 and 1990. Work was suspended in
1990, and resumed in the Customs Union Working Party (Common Customs Tariff) in 1997. Between
1997 and 2002 there was no further discussion of the proposal.

Before presenting its proposal in 1988, the Commission had initiated infringement proceedings against
several Member States under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the Treaty. These infringement proceedings
were suspended pending the adoption of the Regulation. At the beginning of 2002, the Commission
relaunched these infringement proceedings against several Member States.

Subsequently, during the second semester of 2002, the Council reopened discussion of the proposal and
worked and settling an agreement at preparatory level, which lead to a political agreement, in December
2002. On this basis, the Regulation suspending import duties on certain weapons and military equipment
has been formally adopted by the Council on 21 January 2003, as a point without discussion, which is
entirely in accordance with established Council procedures, as preparatory levels had cleared out all the
outstanding issues.

In the original Commission proposal it was foreseen that the Regulation would have a validity of three
years. This provision was not included in the Regulation, as adopted, since, given the long-term duration
of defence procurement contracts, assurances of suspension of import duties for the duration of the
contract were required.

The Council does not possess any estimates of the amount of duties concerned or of the likely impact on
imports of weapons into the EU.

(2004/C 51 E/098)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1419/03

by Véronique Mathieu (EDD) to the Commission

Subject: Fines imposed on French farmers’ unions

(14 April 2003)

The Commission recently imposed fines on six French farmers’ unions for hampering competition.

The Commission knows that its decision constitutes a death blow for trade unionism in the farming
industry. The French unions are highly representative, with 70 % of all farmers belonging to one or other
of them. All branches of the industry now feel threatened.

In 2001, at the height of the crisis in the beef and veal sector triggered by both BSE and foot and mouth
disease, the operators in the beef and veal sector attempted to control market prices in order to prevent
the sector, which maintains high quality standards, from going under.

At the time, producer prices were in free fall, while there was no fall in consumer prices (cid:1) on the
contrary, in some cases they rose. The emergency measures taken by the operators did not constitute an
agreement between commercial undertakings aimed at gaining a dominant market position; they were
merely a means for operators in the beef and veal sector to show solidarity with each other, with the
French Government’s approval, at a time which an economic disaster called for exceptional measures.

Neither the European institutions nor the national authorities came up with any effective solutions at the
time. The steps taken to withdraw produce from the market proved inadequate, partly because of a lack of
cooperation on the part of some Member States.

Given that the Commission has accepted the idea of natural disasters, should it not do the same for
economic disasters, which also cause human hardship, and, having done so, authorise the governments of
the Member States to take appropriate action?

What steps does it intend to take in the future should this or some other sector be hit by a similar crisis?

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/87

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2003)

As noted by the Honourable Member, on 2 April 2003 the Commission imposed a fine of
EUR 16,68 million on six French farmers’ unions for infringing the competition rules. The infringement
took the form of an agreement to fix between farmers’ unions and slaughterers’ unions a minimum
purchase price for certain types of cattle and to suspend and subsequently restrict beef imports from other
Member States. The decision will be published as soon as possible in the Official Journal of the European
Union.

As indicated in its decision, the Commission recognises the importance of trade union activity and the
freedom associated with it. However, this freedom does not authorise trade union organisations to violate
knowingly public order rules such as those governing competition. The Commission would point out in
this connection that the French Competition Council regularly imposes penalties in respect of offences of
this nature committed by trade union organisations, including those working in the agricultural sector.
Trade union activity should, rather, involve using all legal means to assist members. Moreover, as far as the
Commission is aware, no agreements on prices or on suspending imports have been concluded by
operators in the other Member States hit by falling beef prices.

The Commission is, of course, perfectly aware of the context of the specific crisis which hit the beef sector,
as the many regulatory measures taken to stabilise the market clearly demonstrate.
It spent over
EUR 1,5 billion on stabilisation measures; incidentally, France was authorised to grant over EUR 300 million
in direct aid to farmers hit by the crisis. It applied for the first time a specific provision enshrined in point
5(b) of its Guidelines on the method of setting fines (1) in order to reduce substantially (by 60 %) the fine
which would otherwise have been imposed.

The Commission cannot take a position in the abstract on how issues of this nature will be dealt with in
future. All competition issues need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. It can guarantee only that it
will fulfil its duties as guardian of the Treaty by enforcing competition rules whenever it is notified that
they have been infringed.

(1) OJ C 9, 14.1.1998.

(2004/C 51 E/099)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1420/03

by Mario Mastella (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 April 2003)

Subject: Violation by the Polish Government of international conventions on the custody of children

In August 1999 Mrs Karolina Paetz Pozza (Polish), the wife of Mr Paolo Pozza (Italian), on the pretext of
taking the couple’s children, Valentina and Federica (aged 2 and 7), to Poland on holiday, illegally kept
them in the country and subsequently prevented them from going to school and meeting their father.
These facts are borne out by a motion tabled by Senator Mauro Fabris which was adopted by the Italian
Senate.

Despite rulings by Italian and Polish courts giving custody of the two children to Mr Pozza, the latter has
been unable to bring the children back to Italy, although the Poznan police had the wherewithal to
repatriate to the two girls.

The failure to return the girls is attributable to the Polish police’s inability to enforce on its own territory a
custody order issued by Italy and based on the principles laid down in two international conventions to
which both Poland and Italy are signatories, namely the Luxembourg Convention of 20 May 1980 on
Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and the Hague Convention of
25 October 1980 on International Child Abduction.