WRITTEN QUESTION P-2883/03 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Accusations of price-fixing by cross-channel ferry companies.
Date: 2003-09-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: air transport, application of EU law, carrier, competition law, consumer protection, maritime transport, passenger tariff, price agreement, transport user

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.

C 65 E/240

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

Community competition law would, however, be infringed if two or more undertakings have agreed to
commonly restrict the availability of cheaper tickets. Also, certain price discriminations by undertakings
holding a dominant position could violate Community competition law. These rules apply both to the
maritime sector and the air sector.

As regards the cross-Channel practices referred to by the Honourable Member, it should be noted that the
Commission has recently carried out inspections at the premises of a number of operators of cross-
these
Channel
undertakings are inter alia fixing prices and trade conditions for cross-Channel
transport services.
include a thorough review of the pricing practices referred to by the
Commission’s investigation will
Honourable Member. The Commission’s position will be made known once the assessment is completed.

services (1). The purpose of

these inspections was

to ascertain whether

transport

(1) MEMO/03/168 of 3 September 2003; Press release on inspections in cross-Channel transport services.

(2004/C 65 E/256)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2892/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject: More efficient systems for the certification of steel from countries outside the Community used in

the construction industry

The more efficient and strict a system for certifying steel for use in the construction industry is, the more
the safety of buildings can be guaranteed, especially in countries and regions with a high risk of
earthquakes.

Substantial quantities of round reinforcing rods and wire rods come from countries outside the
Community (e.g. Turkey, Ukraine, etc.), exported by producers who obtain type approval and certification
which, unfortunately, often do not seem adequately to ensure the safety of the products, especially those
used for building purposes, which may have dangerous consequences, in particular in areas with a high
risk of earthquakes or floods.

In view of this, will the Commission take steps to bring all the certification and type approval systems used
in the various Member States up to the strictest possible standards?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2003)

The structural safety of constructions, whether buildings or civil engineering works, is the first of the six
essential requirements which are the basis of Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1),
known as the construction products directive, which is intended to guarantee the free movement of
products and their suitability for use while ensuring maximum safety.

The Directive states that products must be fit for use and that this fitness is assessed in relation to technical
specifications known as ‘harmonised’ technical approvals or standards.

The construction products directive also states that when a harmonised standard or approval exists, it
becomes binding and compulsory and must be regarded as the only reference indicating conformity with
the essential requirements, and consequently their fitness for use and for placing on the market, by affixing
the EC mark.

Structural steels, which represent a major group of construction products, have been the subject of a
specific standardisation mandate (cid:1) M 115 (cid:1) drawn up by the Commission and approved by the Standing
Committee on Construction. This mandate was given to the European Committee for Standardisation
(CEN) for the preparation of seven harmonised standards establishing the highest level of conformity
certification (level 1) so that reinforcing and structural steels could be assessed to see that they matched the
essential requirements of the construction products directive.