WRITTEN QUESTION E-3260/03 by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Approving the setting up of a driving school.
Date: 2003-11-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, EU law - national law, business start-up, competition law, driving instruction

C 78 E/244

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0246)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3258/03

by María Ayuso González (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 October 2003)

Subject: Garlic import scheme

In 2001 the European Union introduced a garlic import scheme with a view to placing permanent
restrictions on imports from third countries and preventing the irregularities which have been detected for
years in Chinese garlic sales. Within the World Trade Organisation it negotiated a 38 379-tonne ad
valorem duty-payable quota which was split between Argentina, China and other countries. The new
scheme permanently replaced the successive safeguard clauses which had been introduced in order to
prevent fraudulent exports of Chinese garlic. The initiative has produced satisfactory results, since a
significant reduction in the number of irregularities has been achieved.

Nonetheless, shortcomings still exist, as is apparent from the complaints submitted by Spanish garlic
growers to OLAF.

Would the Commission say whether it intends to introduce internal improvements in order to prevent the
problems which have given rise to the above complaints?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s opinion on the importance of policing import
including those for garlic. It has received complaints from Spanish garlic growers and
arrangements,
passed them on to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to be examined and dealt with.

As she will doubtless agree, if these claims are correct false certificates of origin are being used, possibly
with the connivance of exporting countries’ authorities.

Fraud of this type does not call into question the present policing system and attempts to perpetrate it are
liable to be made regardless of the checks that the importing country can put in place.

To minimise the risk involved Commission officials regularly conduct retrospective examinations of
operation of the garlic scheme.

(2004/C 78 E/0247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3260/03

by Michel Hansenne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject: Approving the setting up of a driving school

The royal decree adopted by Belgium on 23 March 1998 sets out the arrangements for approving the
opening of a driving school in Belgium. It would seem that, in practice, this decree prevents the setting up
of any new driving school.

By taking this step, is Belgium not in breach of EU law, particularly competition law? If so, what does
Belgium have to do to conform with EU rules?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/245

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The situation described by the Honourable Member does not appear to fall within the scope of the rules of
Community competition law.

The Belgian Royal Decree of 23 March 1998 is a State measure.

The rules of Community competition law which are not addressed to undertakings but to the Member
States, are the rules regarding State Aid (Articles 87 and 88, EC Treaty) and public or privileged
undertakings (Article 86, EC Treaty). The provisions of the relevant Royal Decree do not appear to fall
within the scope of those rules.

However,
in certain cases Community competition law can also be applied to State measures if these
measures impose or induce anti-competitive behaviour by undertakings. It is, therefore, required that the
undertakings concerned adopt an anti-competitive behaviour which in itself constitutes a violation of
Community competition rules. The requirements for the accreditation of driving schools, laid down in the
Royal Decree, do not appear to impose or induce anti-competitive behaviour of driving schools.

(2004/C 78 E/0248)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3262/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject: Exclusion of persons who are nationals of another Member State from the right to purchase soft

drugs or to be members of a users’ association

1.
Is the Commission aware that the selling of soft drugs in Netherlands ‘coffee shops’, allowed in
practice since the 1970s, follows the basic principle that the sale of such drugs should be refused to those
who are under age, but not to those who are not Netherlands nationals?

2.
Is the Commission aware of the joint press conference held on 22 October 2003 in Berlin by the
German Interior Minister and the Netherlands Justice Minister, at which, inter alia, statements were made
which could lead to a policy based on different treatment of EU residents depending on their nationality or
the country where they are resident?

3. Would it be permissible, on the basis of the current European Treaties, for the sale of the soft drugs
sold in Netherlands ‘coffee shops’ to be refused in future to those who are not Netherlands nationals or
citizens? If not, will the Commission be informing the Member States of this?

4. Would it be permissible, on the basis of the current European Treaties, for the sale of soft drugs in
Netherlands ‘coffee shops’ to be limited in future to closed users’ associations that must refuse membership
to those who are not Netherlands nationals or citizens? If not, will the Commission be informing the
Member States of this?

5. Would a possible alternative to discrimination based on nationality and citizenship be for the
authorities wishing to combat the use of soft drugs on their territory to start from the basic principle that
consumption must take place in the country of purchase, similarly to the way in which Netherlands
nationals may purchase dangerous fireworks or firearms but may not import such products into the
Netherlands?

Source: Netherlands newspaper NRC-Handelsblad, 23.10.2003.