WRITTEN QUESTION E-3463/03 by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Fixing maximum profit margins for sales of fresh produce.
Date: 2003-11-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, competition, fresh product, price formation, price regulations, sale, trading margin

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/815

It does not, however, fall within the competence of the Commission to comment on the policies and
practices of individual Member States in this field.

(2004/C 78 E/0865)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3463/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject: Fixing maximum profit margins for sales of fresh produce

In Greece maximum profit margins in the trade in fresh vegetable and fruit are laid down by Market
Decree 14/1989, as amended by Market Decrees 16/1991 and 2/1992. These range from 7 % to 12 % for
wholesale and 25 % to 40 % for retail prices.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

(cid:1) Is it aware of the existence of the above market decrees and the implementation thereof by the Greek

authorities?

(cid:1) Is it permissible to establish a maximum profit margin for products for the wholesale and the retail

trade?

(cid:1) Under these conditions, how can fair competition be guaranteed and the law of supply and demand

maintained?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The Commission has not been informed by the Greek authorities about the specific measures introduced
by Market Decree 14/1989 (1). However, Member States may and do adopt national legal measures to
render the enforcement of a domestic policy applicable to a specific sector or industry more efficient, even
though the sector is covered by a common organization of the market (a so-called ‘CMO’).

As the Honourable Member is aware, in 1972 the Council adopted a common organization of the market
in fruit and vegetables (2). In sectors where a CMO applies, Member States are in principle no longer
entitled to freely interfere with the price mechanisms of the CMO by, for example, implementing unilateral
domestic laws having the direct or indirect effect of fixing prices in a certain sector. This, however, does
not prohibit Member States such as Greece from adopting measures relating to price formation at the retail
and consumption stages as long as such measures do not jeopardize the objectives or functioning of the
CMO (3).

However, the Commission wishes to point out that it has to be differentiated between price fixing agreed
on by undertakings and a price legislation adopted by public authorities. In the latter case, Member States
have the responsibility to respect Articles 3, 10(2) and 81 et seq. of the EC Treaty.

The EC Treaty competition rules (Articles 81-86) apply to concerted practices between undertakings such
as direct or indirect price fixing. According to Article 36 of the EC Treaty competition rules apply to
agriculture to the extent determined by the Council within the framework of the requirements of the
Common Agricultural Policy. Subject to certain exceptions, Council Regulation (EEC) No 26/62 (4) in
substance also permits application of the competition rules to agricultural products.

C 78 E/816

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Nevertheless, the European Court of Justice has ruled that, as regards the application of Article 3 and
Article 81 of the EC Treaty to price rules, it must be observed that the purpose of such rules is not to
compel traders to conclude agreements or to take any other action of the kind prohibited by Article 81(1)
of the EC Treaty, but to entrust responsibility in pricing matters to the public authorities (5) and that
Article 3 and Article 81 do not prohibit the adoption by Member States of such national rules providing
for retail sale prices to be fixed by the public authorities (6).

From the point of view of the EC Treaty rules on free movement of goods (Articles 28-30), it should be
noted that the maximum profit margin must be calculated on the basis of a purchase price which takes
into account the import and procurement costs effectively borne by the retailers, in this way neutralizing
the impact of distance and avoiding obstacles to commercial exchanges contrary to Article 28 of the EC
Treaty (7).

(1) Amended by Market Decrees 16/1991 and 2/1992.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and
vegetables, OJ L 118, 20.5.1972 which was replaced in 1996 by Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, of
28 October 1996, OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.
Judgment of 17 January 1980 in Joined Cases 95 and 96/79 Kefer and Delmelle (1980) ECR, p. 103.

(3)
(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 26/62 applying certain rules of competition to production of and trade in agricultural

products, OJ B 30, 20.4.1962.
Judgment of 2 July 1985 in Case 188/86 Lefevre ((1987)) ECR 2963.
Judgment of 29 January 1985 in Case 231/83 Cullet v. Leclerc ((1985)) ECR 305.
Judgment of 24 January 1978 in Case 82/77, Openbaar Ministerie v. Van Tiggele, (1978) ECR 25.

(5)
(6)
(7)

(2004/C 78 E/0866)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3465/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject: Dichlofluanid

Does the Commission believe that there is sufficient scientific evidence to justify a ban on dichlofluanid?
If so, does the Commission have any plans to ban the use of dichlofluanid as a non-professional wood
preservative in urban environments?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 16 February 1998 regulates the placing of biocidal
products, such as wood preservatives, on the market (1). The Directive provides (cid:1) among others (cid:1) for a
ten-year review programme of all active substances, which were used in biocidal products before 14 May
2000 (the so-called ‘existing’ active substances), in order to establish that they do not have unacceptable
effects on the environment and on human or animal health.

According to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (2), all active substances had to be identified by
28 March 2002 and economic operators interested to continue placing their active substances on the
market had to notify them by the same date (3). Notified substances will be evaluated in view of their
possible inclusion in Annexes I or IA of the Directive if their impact on human and animal health and the
environment is found to be acceptable. Active substances that are only identified will have to be phased
out by 1 September 2006 at the latest.

The active substance dichlofluanid has been notified for use in product types 7 (film preservatives), 8 (wood
preservatives), 10 (masonry preservatives) and 21 (antifouling products). Complete dossiers for active
substances used in wood preservatives (and rodenticides) are scheduled to be evaluated first, and will have
to be submitted by 28 March 2004. The United Kingdom has been designated as the Rapporteur Member
State.