WRITTEN QUESTION E-1731/03 by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Infringement by Denmark of Articles 82 and 86 of the Treaty.
Date: 2003-05-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, application of EU law, beverage industry, deposit on a polluting product, dominant position, industrial secret, packaging product

C 84 E/476

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Can the Commission explain exactly what prompted it to impose the financial correction of EUR 2,8 million
on Ifadap?

(1) OJ C 295, 28.11.2002, p. 58.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

The financial correction in question has not yet reached the final accounts clearance procedure, which
includes a hearing stage at which the Member State can put forward its arguments.

If a financial correction decision is adopted we shall inform the Honourable Member.

(2004/C 84 E/0551)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1731/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Infringement by Denmark of Articles 82 and 86 of the Treaty

With the establishment of Dansk Retursystem A/S (DRS), Denmark is in breach of Articles 82 and 86 of
the Treaty as a result of Carlsberg’s dominant position on the Danish market combined with Carlsberg’s
dominant influence over DRS A/S. DRS A/S is a private company which has obtained sole and exclusive
right to operate the deposit and return system in Denmark. Carlsberg, however, controls DRS completely
as it has the majority shareholding in DRS Holding and the holding company owns 85 % of the shares in
DRS A/S. Furthermore, Carlsberg holds most of the seats on the boards of both DRS Holding and DRS A/S
(see previous question E-3828/02 (1)). DRS A/S has sole and exclusive right to operate the deposit and
return system with which all companies marketing beer and soft drinks must be registered. The exclusive
right comprises the collection of disposable packaging but not collection of reusable packaging which can
be organised by the bottling plants themselves. This means that there is no competition on the Danish
market for the collection of disposable packaging, which is a breach of Article 82 in that the company
concerned, simply by exercising its exclusive right, cannot avoid abusing its dominant position or the
exclusive right is likely to create a situation in which the company is induced to commit abuse. By giving
sole and exclusive right to DRS A/S, which is effectively controlled by Carlsberg, DRS A/S is placed in a
conflict of interests,
‘inter alia’ by giving board members access to sensitive business information about
their competitors on the Danish beer and soft drinks market.

Will the Commission intervene in response to this breach of Articles 82 and 86 of the Treaty?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 52.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

The Honourable Member refers to the establishment of Dansk Retursystem A/S (DRS) which has obtained
the exclusive right to operate the deposit and return system in Denmark.

According to the case law of the European Court of Justice merely creating a dominant position is not, in
itself, incompatible with Article 82 of the EC Treaty. There can be a breach of the prohibitions contained
in Articles 86 and 82 of the EC Treaty if the undertaking in question, by exercising the exclusive rights

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/477

granted to it, is led to abuse its dominant position or when such rights are liable to create a situation in
which that undertaking is led to commit such abuses (cases C-163/96, Raso; C-209/98, FFAD).

When the Danish legislation on the deposit and return system was drafted, the Commission was in contact
with the Danish competition authority. Due to its intervention, modifications of the draft legislation were
made. It is not envisaged to start an infringement procedure against Denmark based on the violation of
Community competition rules by granting an exclusive right to DRS. The fact that Carlsberg controls DRS
is as such not sufficient to demonstrate an abuse of DRS. Possible conflicts of interest raised by the
Honourable Member can be avoided if there are sufficient firewalls to make sure that Carlsberg does not
get access to sensitive business information held by the auditing company or DRS.

As already mentioned in the reply to the Written Question E-3828/02 of the Honourable Member, the
Commission is monitoring the practical operation of the system. As far as the practical operation or the
scope of the system raise competition issues, the Commission continues to co-operate with the Danish
competition authority.

(2004/C 84 E/0552)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1736/03

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 May 2003)

Subject: Commission presence at the Fifth World Avocado Congress

Further to my Written Question No E-1154/02 (1) of 22 April 2002, and the answer received from the
Commission, the organising committee of the Fifth World Avocado Congress is aware of the possibility
that a Commission representative might attend the event.

Following the previous four congresses held in the United States, Mexico, South Africa and Israel, the
holding of the forthcoming congress in Europe is particularly important for the sector and offers an
in its capacity as manager of the CAP, to gain first-hand
excellent opportunity for the Commission,
knowledge of the findings of papers presented at the congress and consider how they might be applied to
assist Community avocado producers.

Will the Commission therefore say whether it is able to accept the invitation from the organising
committee of the conference concerned and play an active part in it, examining how the congress’ findings
can be put into practice and reviewing the position of avocado production within and outside the
Community?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 154.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 2003)

The organisers of the Fifth World Avocado Congress have sent us an invitation to the event without
stating any specific wish for active participation. We are looking at
the possibility of non-active
participation given our work priorities and human and financial resources.

If the organisers wish active participation on our part in the event and in putting its findings into practice,
they should make direct contact with the appropriate department within our organisation (Agriculture
Directorate-General, Directorate for Markets in Crop Products, Unit for Fresh and Processed Fruit and
Vegetables) so that their wishes can be ascertained and action agreed on.