WRITTEN QUESTION E-2265/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Deployment of a fund and provision of misleading information in order to dissuade authorities and other large users from using cheaper software available from a competitor.
Date: 2003-07-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competition law, dominant position, information technology industry, restriction on competition, trade licence

C 78 E/736

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

extent the described impact and implication have been underestimated while, as regards the Milan Verona
project, the impacts on natural sites, mentioned by the Honourable Member, are not sufficiently described
and it is not clear whether a study on the impact of the project on water and noise pollution was carried
out or not.

In the light of the above, the information provided by the Honourable Member is not sufficient to draw
concrete conclusions as regards the correct application of the EIA Directive.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2004/C 78 E/0784)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2265/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject: Deployment of a fund and provision of misleading information in order to dissuade authorities

and other large users from using cheaper software available from a competitor

Is the Commission aware of the existence of Microsoft’s internal e-mails and other documents,

1.
including ‘Microsoft Confidential’ of 16 July 2002, referred to by the International Herald Tribune?

2. Will the Commission compel Microsoft to make these documents available to it? The documents in
question indicate that the company is using a special fund of USD 180 million to persuade authorities and
large organisations to use Microsoft software rather than Linux.

3. When did/will the Commission take a decision on this?

4.
Is it possible that the Commission may impose fines for the granting of unjustified discounts, similar
to those imposed on such companies as Michelin and British Airways in the past, on account of the
information to be obtained in this way or on account of a refusal to provide it?

5. What other ways of putting a rapid and complete end to such practices within the European market
is the Commission considering?

6.
Is Microsoft’s use of members of its staff as ostensibly independent consultants or independent
business-persons, with the aim of obtaining information from competitors or of acquiring potential
customers, acceptable within the EU? Will the Commission inform the company that these practices,
which are resorted to in America, are not permissible here?

7. When does the Commission expect that measures already taken or yet to be taken will permanently
reverse Microsoft’s further progress towards a total monopoly on the European market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 August 2003)

The Commission is aware of the article referred to by the Honourable Member, and the contents of

1.
this article.

2. and 3.
The majority of the Commission’s resources in this area is currently devoted to the main
ongoing investigation against Microsoft, which relates to allegations in the fields of interoperability and
tying. Nevertheless, the Commission intends to examine Microsoft’s licensing arrangements, including the
allegations referred to by the Honourable Member, in greater detail.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/737

It is premature to speculate on this question. The Commission confirms that unjustified discounts by

4.
a dominant company can constitute an abuse of Article 82 of the EC Treaty.

5.
As outlined in the answers to questions 2, 3 and 4, the Commission intends to examine Microsoft’s
licensing arrangements in greater detail. It is therefore premature to consider potential courses of action
before the allegations are properly examined.

The Commission has no information that the practices alleged by the Honourable Member are taking

6.
place within the Union.

7.
The Commission’s analysis of what is a complex and exhaustive file in its ongoing Microsoft
investigation is in its latter stages. The Commission intends to ensure that the final outcome of the case is
beneficial to innovation and consumers alike.

(2004/C 78 E/0785)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2328/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Helicopter services to the Isles of Scilly

Will the Commission ensure that the interpretation of the Lisi report ‘Compensation and assistance to air
passengers’ will take into account the situation of airlines that fly particularly difficult routes for technical
and meteorological reasons, such as the above and similar routes? After all the intention of the report was
to compensate passengers for the airlines that unreasonably inflict on passengers the cost of their failure to
provide the resources to ensure passengers are not unnecessarily inconvenienced, and not to drive those
that are giving a valuable and important public service on acknowledged difficult routes out of business.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 2003)

The Commission recognises the particular conditions faced by air carriers, including helicopter operators,
when operating some essential and difficult routes.

The draft Regulation ‘establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to air passengers in the
flights (1)’ will shortly go through the
event of denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of
conciliation procedure, and the Lisi report on ‘Compensation and assistance to air passengers’ does not
address the situation of airlines that fly particularly difficult routes. However, the draft Regulation includes
the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable
measures had been taken’.

In particular, such circumstances may occur in cases of meteorological conditions incompatible with the
operation of the flight concerned and unexpected flight safety shortcomings. This concept is an efficient
in such circumstances, carriers shall be exempted from certain obligations in event of
safeguard as,
cancellations and delays. It maintains a balance between passengers’ rights and operational hazards for
which operators can not be considered responsible.

‘a mechanical breakdown’ may not, by definition, always fall within the concept of
Nevertheless,
‘extraordinary circumstances’. Operators having to guarantee quality and safety of service normally will
have the responsibility to avoid such failure.

(1) OJ C 103 E, 30.4.2002.