WRITTEN QUESTION E-3070/03 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Distortions of competition caused by the German Foreign Trade Act.
Date: 2003-10-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Germany, arms industry, company with share capital, foreign trade, free movement of capital, legal rule, restriction on competition, shareholding

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/217

On the basis of the material supplied on 19 March 2003, the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office initiated a
judicial investigation.

Subsequently the Commission, acting on the advice of OLAF, decided to file a complaint against X on
10 July 2003, in order to cover the entire potential financial loss. As the Honourable Member is informed
by the note of
the Public Prosecutor submitted an
application to the examining judge on 4 August 2003. In the above mentioned note, the Director of OLAF
also informed that the report on the internal aspects will be sent to the French judicial authorities very
shortly.

the Director of OLAF of 24 September 2003,

The documents which OLAF sent to the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office are governed by the national
procedure and as such are covered by the judicial secrecy applicable to criminal matters; it is not for the
Commission to comment on them.

(2004/C 78 E/0222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3070/03

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Distortions of competition caused by the German Foreign Trade Act

1.
Is the Commission aware that the Federal German Government is intending to introduce in the
armaments industry a new authorisation and notification with regard to the sale to foreign buyers of more
than 25 % of shares in domestic undertakings to foreign buyers? If so, what is the Commission’s reaction
thereto, and has it delivered an opinion thereon?

This new Federal Act is to apply to undertakings which manufacture or trade in goods for export. It is
2.
claimed that the aim of the authorisation obligation is to monitor the relocation of German undertakings
and dominance by third countries, but only in respect of the sensitive armaments industry.

The definition and demarcation of what is covered by the term ‘armaments industry’ in the broadest
3.
sense of the term is vague. What does the Commission intend to do to prevent the danger that such an
authorisation of one EU Government might
introduce a politically motivated dominance in other
economic sectors as well and thus decisively restrict the competitiveness and entrepreneurial freedom of
the German undertakings concerned?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2003)

While, according to Article 56 of the EC Treaty, all restrictions on the movement of capital between
Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited, according to Article 58
EC, the provisions of Article 56 EC shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States:

(cid:1) to take all requisite measures to prevent infringements of national law and regulations;

(cid:1) to lay down procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes of administrative

information; and

(cid:1) to take measures which are justified on grounds of public security (Article 58 (1) b of the EC Treaty).

C 78 E/218

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

In his question, the Honourable Member refers to a German federal law which is at the drafting stage.
While any further position by the Commission would require an analysis of existing legislation and its
definite wording, an authorisation/notification procedure with regard to the sale of more than 25 % of
shares in domestic undertakings to foreign buyers in the sector of armament manufacturing and export
trade might be covered by these prudential considerations. The Commission will of course monitor that
the scope of the application of this new law will not give rise to concerns in the sense of Article 58(3) of
the EC Treaty (arbitrary discrimination, disguised restriction on the free movement of capital).

On the basis of the information available, the Commission does not intend to take specific measures to
initiatives such as the one described by the Honourable Member. The
cope with Member States’
Commission will, however, continue to ensure that the free movement of capital is not unduly restricted.

(2004/C 78 E/0223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3072/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Provision of the ADSL service in Greece

(20 October 2003)

The Telecommunications Organisation of Greece (OTE) introduced the ADSL service in Greece in June
2003. Straight away, many complaints were made concerning the type of provision, the quality of services
and the scale of charges. A characteristic feature is the fact that the service is provided in Greece at a cost
which is five times higher than in the rest of the EU. The reason for this is that, through various
manoeuvres, the OTE has essentially succeeded in excluding private ADSL-suppliers from the market,
thereby preventing them from competing with the OTE.

More specifically the OTE, which provides this service on both a wholesale and retail basis, has decided to
set charges so that the difference between the wholesale and retail rate is very small and essentially to
prevent private firms from offering the ADSL service at lower prices than those charged by the OTE.
Moreover, the OTE does not guarantee any level of quality in the ADSL service which it supplies to private
firms on a wholesale basis (it confines itself to ‘best efforts’), with the result that those firms are completely
unable to guarantee the quality of the services they provide to their customers. The OTE also supplies the
ADSL service only to those users who have obtained the terminal equipment from the OTE itself.

How does the Commission assess these actions on the part of the OTE in the context of the

1.
liberalisation of telecommunications in the EU?

2. Will
it intervene with the Greek authorities with a view to ending the monopoly which has
essentially been created in the above market, and which is preventing both Greek citizens and the Greek
economy from using and exploiting this new technology?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2003)

Under the new Community regulatory framework for electronic communications, the national regulatory
authority (NRA) will, taking due account of the Commission’s Recommendation on relevant markets (1),
need to conduct a market analysis of, inter alia, the market for wholesale unbundled access (including
shared access) to metallic loops and sub-loops for the purpose of providing broadband and voice services
and the market for wholesale broadband access, in order to determine whether any operator has significant
market power (SMP) on those markets. If SMP is found to exist, the NRA will need to impose appropriate
remedies.

Greece has not yet transposed the new Community framework. The Commission has initiated infringement
proceedings against Greece for non-communication of the transposition measures.