WRITTEN QUESTION E-1485/03 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission. Discrimination in building society/bank share conversion.
Date: 2003-05-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, anti-discriminatory measure, company with share capital, investment, public limited company, real estate credit, residence, shareholding

C 58 E/72

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

(cid:1) Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States

relating to trade marks (6),

(cid:1) Directive 2000/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation
of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (7).

(1) COM(2003) 23 final.
(2) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.
(3) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991.
(4) OJ L 185, 25.7.2000.
(5) OJ C 252, 12.9.2001.
(6) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.
(7) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.

(2004/C 58 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1485/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Discrimination in building society/bank share conversion

Is the Commission aware that some UK banks/building societies appear to be using internal
1.
administrative rules to deny their investors who reside in certain Member States the same benefits as those
investors resident in other Member States, regarding allocation of shares when a building society is
converted to a plc? In particular, the Bradford and Bingley Building Society in the UK has denied one of its
investors a share allocation during the Building Society’s conversion into a plc because the investor lived in
Austria, whereas investors who live in Belgium, France, Germany, UK, Ireland, Spain and the Netherlands
have been allocated these shares.

2.

Does the Commission agree that this discrimination is incompatible with the Treaty?

3. What action will the Commission take to rectify the situation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission recently received a complaint concerning possible discriminatory treatment at the time of
the process of demutualization of an entity in the United Kingdom. To reply to this complaint, the
Commission requested the assistance of the United Kingdom Financial Services Authority (FSA). According
to the FSA, in the process of demutualization of that entity, its members were allotted shares in the new
public limited company as compensation for giving up their membership rights, except for those members
who were resident in countries other than the United Kingdom and who receive cash instead of shares.
The process of demutualization was governed by the company’s rules of constitution;
it was agreed
between its members; and it was not subject to the jurisdiction of the FSA. This exception for non-United
Kingdom residents was apparently made with a view to the perceived extra expense involved in issuing
shares to non-United Kingdom residents and the information about this envisaged exception was made
available to all members prior to the above mentioned agreements.

In that case, the Commission considered that neither article 12 of the EC Treaty nor the Community case
law offered any support to pursue the matter further. The Commission can only start an infringement
procedure on the basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty against a Member Sate if that Member State has
failed to fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty. In this case, the issue at stake concerns rights granted
amongst private parties and falls, in the Commission’s opinion, within the competence of the British
authorities and courts.

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/73

From the information given in the written question regarding the allocation of shares during the Building
Society’s conversion into a public limited company (plc), it is not possible to determine whether there is
discrimination on grounds of residence. In this case, unlike in the previous one, there is even a different
treatment between those members who were resident in countries other than the United Kingdom.
The Commission will proceed to obtain more detailed information on this part of case and has written to
the FSA for assistance. The Commission will analyse whether the differences with the previous case above
mentioned imply any discrimination and will take the necessary measures if appropriate.

(2004/C 58 E/089)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1495/03

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(24 April 2003)

Subject: Interpretative guide to the Birds Directive

The Commission has for several months been working on the interpretative guide to the Birds Directive.

Parliament has never been involved in the drafting of this document, which is supposed to clarify the
situation concerning the hunting seasons for migratory birds, particularly in connection with Articles 7
and 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC (1).

The Commission has recently requested an opinion from its Legal Service on the guide’s content.

Would the Commission state whether it plans to submit the document to the European Parliament for its
opinion? If so, under which procedure and at what stage? If not, how does the Commission propose to
involve European MPs in the project before the text is finally agreed, bearing in mind that 254 of them
signed a written declaration in December 2000 calling for amendment of the Birds Directive?

And would the Commission state whether the interpretative guide will be annexed to the Birds Directive,
and whether it will be contestable before the Court of Justice of the European Communities?

Finally, would the Commission provide me with a copy of the French version of the document submitted
to its Legal Service, and the latter’s opinion?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2003)

The Commission is committed to providing a copy of the guidance document to the Parliament as soon as
it has been finalised, and it will also make a copy of the French version available to the Honourable
Member.

As a guidance document it is being prepared under the sole responsibility of the Commission. There are
no provisions for formal consultation of the Parliament in the context of such documents. However, the
Commission has already indicated that the document will be presented to the appropriate Committee and
Intergroups of the Parliament.

The document is not itself a legal
instrument, and will not be formally annexed to the Directive. In
addition, it needs to be stressed that the Court of Justice retains the sole prerogative to interpret the
provisions of the Directive. However, the Commission intends to promote the guide, which will be widely
disseminated to Member States and the different stakeholder groups.