WRITTEN QUESTION P-2882/03 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Implementation of Directive 2000/35/EC in the EU and late payment to hospitals by state and public-sector organisations in Greece.
Date: 2003-09-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, application of EU law, claim, financial solvency, hospital expenses, management accounting, medical institution, organisation of health care, payment, public institution

C 65 E/238

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

Although there does not exist hard evidence about where the stolen bicycles wind up, there are clear
indications that most stolen bicycles are sold to private citizens, either directly or on so-called ‘fencing’
markets.

There do not seem to be indications that the attractiveness of the bicycle as a sustainable mode of
transport is negatively influenced by the occurrence of bicycle theft. Victim surveys show, however, that
personal experience of criminal victimisation (cid:1) amongst which bicycle theft (cid:1) contributes to increasing
the feelings of insecurity amongst the population. Feelings of insecurity have been increasing slowly but
steadily across the Union between 1996 and 2002.

The theft of bicycles is largely a local, regional or national phenomenon. Effective solutions can and must
therefore be taken at those levels in the Member States. What could in addition be usefully done at Union
level, however, is to examine within the Union Crime Prevention Network if there are Member States with
effective measures to prevent bicycle theft which could be applied in other Member States.

(2004/C 65 E/254)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2882/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 September 2003)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 2000/35/EC in the EU and late payment to hospitals by state and

public-sector organisations in Greece

Article 3 of Directive 2000/35/EC (1) on combating late payment in commercial transactions provides that
the Member States shall ensure that interest shall become payable from the day following the date or the
end of the period for payment fixed in the contract and sets out other provisions for combating late
payment on the internal market. Three of the fifteen Member States have not incorporated the directive
into national law and in Greece, reportedly, many hospitals are now in dire financial straits because they
are owed huge amounts for patients’ treatment by the (mainly state-run) insurance agencies. For example,
the Polygiros hospital at Halkidiki alone is owed EUR 2,5 million, EUR 1,5 million of which is owed by
the Farmers’ Security Organisation, a public-sector body. Moreover, according to recent information, the
public hospitals in Greece owe their suppliers more than EUR 1 174 billion, only two years since their
previous debts were written off, which has resulted in disruption of the market, the emergence of
oligopolies, with distortion of competition and shortages of goods.

Which countries have not incorporated the above directive into national law and what measures will the
Commission take, as guardian of the Treaties, against those Member States which are in breach of
Community law in order to bring about full compliance with the relevant legislation and the smooth
operation of the internal market?

Given that the debts owed the hospitals by the state, the insurance agencies and other public- sector bodies
and enterprises (e.g. banks etc.) constitute payments within the meaning of the above directive, what
measures will the Commission take to implement in Greece the agreements concluded after 8 August
2002 (the date on which the directive on debts became effective)?

How can it ensure the smooth operation of the single market and combat late payment in the interests of
citizens, businesses and the self-employed when public-sector bodies or a state are operating within the
Union in an insolvent condition?

(1) OJ L 200, 8.8.2000, p. 35.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

The Greek Government has communicated to the Commission the information that it has transposed
Directive 2000/35/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment
in commercial transactions, by means of Presidential Decree No 166/2003 published in the Government
Gazette No 138 of 5 June 2003.

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/239

The Commission is in the process of examining this and other legislation transposing this Directive
received from other Member States, in order to verify its conformity with the Directive.

Only two Member States, Spain and Luxembourg, have failed to communicate transpositions to the
Commission, and the Commission has taken the Decision, in June 2003, to refer these infringements of
the EC Treaty to the Court of Justice under Article 226.

The Directive’s transposition in Greece now gives the creditors in that Member State the right to benefit
(http://
from the terms of the Directive in their actions against debtors. The Commission’s website:
europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/regulation/late_payments/implementation.htm) provides further information
on the Directive and its economic objectives.

Beyond the implementation of the late payment Directive the Commission will present, before the end of
2003, a proposal for a Regulation creating a European order for payment procedure, that is to say a
uniform European summary procedure that will enable the speedy and efficient recovery of money claims
in civil and commercial matters over which no legal controversy exists. The Community-wide availability
of such a procedure will represent an additional valuable tool to combat late payments with regard to
uncontested claims.

(2004/C 65 E/255)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2883/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 September 2003)

Subject: Accusations of price-fixing by cross-channel ferry companies

Although it is possible to cross the English Channel by ferry and return the same day very cheaply, the
price of a ticket on all the ferry companies is far higher, sometimes as high as hundreds of pounds, for
anyone wishing to stay longer. Given that the service is exactly the same, there is the suggestion not only
that day-trippers are being subsidised by longer-stay passengers but that the fact that all the companies
appear to follow this practice amounts to illegal price-fixing. Does the Commission believe that this is the
case and, if so, has the Commission asked all the cross-channel ferry companies for an explanation of their
pricing policies?

In addition, there is evidence that passengers buying cheap return tickets on their credit cards on ferry
companies and who do not, for whatever reason, use the return fare are charged an enormous surcharge,
equivalent to the price of a longer-stay fare, without their agreement. Airlines flying to or from European
destinations have also been known to charge more for single fares than for return fares, and to charge
significant surcharges to passengers who buy a return fare but only travel one-way.

Does the Commission believe that
Commission believe that they conform to European competition requirements?

there is any justification for such fare structures and does the

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Transport operators within the Union are in principle free to set their own prices which would normally
include the possibility to set different prices for customers demanding different types of services. Transport
services can be differentiated by various objective factors targeted at the specific needs of different
customers. The Commission cannot object as such towards a pricing system whereby day-tickets designed
to attract new demand and aimed for a short notice target group are offered at different conditions,
including different fares, than standard return services.