WRITTEN QUESTION E-3929/03 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Increase in inflation in Greece.
Date: 2003-12-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, advertising malpractice, competition law, consumer protection, fine, inflation, publishing of prices, restrictive trade practice

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/879

Two modular road trains take up less space than three normal lorries, which help reduce the congestion
on the European road network. It also means a reduction in the number of drivers and thus in the risk to
road safety.

The introduction of modular road trains will also mean lower emissions per tonne of transported goods,
with clear benefits to the environment.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to introduce modular road trains into transnational
transport throughout the EU (cid:1) with a view to reducing emissions in the transport sector and congestion
on the European road network?

What is the Commission doing to incorporate the environmental dimension into regulations on weight
and dimensions?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

Although economic considerations could support the argument for increasing the weight and dimensions
of road haulage vehicles, such a measure would very probably have a negative overall impact, in that
instead of encouraging modal transfer from road to rail (as recommended by the Commission in its 2001
White Paper on common transport policy) it would do the opposite. The environmental consequences
would therefore be uncertain and the increase in the number of longer and heavier lorries on the road
could have a negative impact on safety.

The last time the Directive on weights and measures (1) was amended, the Member States and the
Commission took the view that the rules on weight and dimensions should remain stable in the long term.
(The amendment concerned buses and coaches only.)

The Commission is still exchanging views on the subject with the Member States within a group of
experts.

(1) Directive 2002/07/EC of the European Parliament and of the Councill of 18 February 2002 amending Council
Directive 96/53/EC laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum
authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international
traffic, OJ L 67, 9.3.2002.

(2004/C 78 E/0932)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3929/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject: Increase in inflation in Greece

Many EU countries (and particularly Greece) have seen substantial price increases since the introduction of
the euro, which have meant a very considerable erosion of consumer income. The Greek press recently
announced that fresh increases in the prices of staple goods such as flour are imminent, and this will
certainly have a knock-on effect in the market. It should be borne in mind that producers in agricultural
regions in Greece, for instance in Thessaly, are complaining that Greece imports wheat from as far afield as
Australia, even though agricultural cooperatives have stocks of thousands of tonnes of unsold first-class
Greek wheat (to cite but one instance, in one village in the Prefecture of Larissa there are 700 tonnes of
wheat which have remained unsold for months).

C 78 E/880

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Is it contrary to Community legislation to impose very heavy fines and other penalties on undertakings
which continually put prices up, engage in speculation or trick consumers (cid:1) for instance by advertising
‘price freezes’ while blatantly increasing prices? What kind of penalties might be imposed and what might
the maximum fine be? Could penalties also be imposed on undertakings which announce a given sales
price for products (for example, through press advertising or labels on shelves), while charging a different
price to consumers? What have been the three largest fines or other most severe penalties imposed on
undertakings in the eurozone over the last two years since the introduction of the euro? What is the
largest fine or other penalty imposed for the same reasons on a Greek undertaking since 1 January 2002?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2004)

It is not, in principle, contrary to Community law for a Member State to fine companies that increase
prices to excessive levels, cheat consumers or provide misleading information about prices. Moreover,
Member States must make sure that the relevant Community legislation is complied with, viz.
the
harmonised Community rules on consumer protection and Community competition rules (1).

These rules establish a frame of reference for the actions of firms and prohibit a certain number of
practices that are regarded as unacceptable.

Community consumer legislation regulates unfair or deceptive behaviour towards consumers and certain
practices regarding the display of prices. The main instrument is Directive 84/450/EEC (2), as amended (3),
relating to misleading advertising, which aims to put in place in Member States effective means of
monitoring, taking action against and imposing penalties on those who target consumers with misleading
advertising. Moreover, Directive 98/6/EC on the indication of prices (4) requires indication of the selling
price and the price per unit of measurement of products offered by traders to consumers in order to
improve consumer information and provides that Member States must lay down effective, proportionate
and dissuasive penalties for infringements of these provisions. Lastly in June 2003, the Commission
presented a proposal for a Directive aimed at ensuring full harmonisation of the requirements relating to
unfair business practices within the EU (5). The most important element of this proposal is the general ban
on unfair practices, as defined in the proposal and which include misleading and aggressive practices.

All of these provisions of Community consumer legislation will, when incorporated into national law by
the Member States, ensure that traders who mislead consumers as regards prices are identified.

Community competition law prohibits firms from abusing a dominant position where trade between
Member States is affected. It would, for example, be considered an abuse to sell at excessive prices or to
give discriminatory advantages to certain customers, thereby putting competitors at a disadvantage.

Community competition law also prohibits restrictive practices and concerted practices between undertak-
ings, with decisions of associations of undertakings ranking as such, that serve to increase prices (6).

It also lays down fines for infringement of its rules. The fine may not exceed 10 % of the firm’s global
turnover in the preceding business year (Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 (7) and, from 1 May 2004,
Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (8)).

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/881

The three largest fines imposed at Community level for restrictive practices engaged in by firms in the euro
two years were: EUR 118 125 000 (on Degussa in the Methionine decision) (9),
zone in the last
EUR 249 600 000 (on Lafarge in the Plasterboard decision) (10) and EUR 99 000 000 (on Hoechst in the
Sorbates decision) (11) … For abuse of a dominant position, the largest fines were: Deutsche Telecom
(EUR 12 600 000) (12) and Wanadoo (EUR 10 350 000) (13). No fine has been imposed at Community level
in the last two years on a Greek firm.

(1)

From 1 May 2004, the relationship between Community competition rules (restrictive practices and abuse of a
dominant position) and national competition law will be governed by Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and
82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 4.1.2003. As regards unilateral acts by companies (as opposed to restrictive practices
between companies), the Member States may apply even stricter competition rules than those laid down in
Community law.

(2) Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and

administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising, OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.

(3) Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/

EEC concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising, OJ L 290, 23.10.1997.

(4) Parliament and Council Directive 98/6/EC of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the

prices of products offered to consumers, OJ L 80, 18.3.1998.

(5) Proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in
the Internal Market and amending Directives 84/450/EEC, 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (Unfair Commercial Practices
Directive), (COM(2003) 356 final).

(6) As with abuse of a dominant position, this is prohibited only where the practice in question affects trade between

Member States.

(7) Council Regulation (EEC) No 17/62: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 (now Article 81) and 86

(now Article 82) of the EEC Treaty, OJ P 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204.

(8) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid

down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 4.1.2003.
(9) Commission Decision of 2 July 2002, OJ L 255, 8.10.2003.
(10) Commission Decision of 27 November 2002, not yet published.
(11) Commission Decision of 1 October 2003, not yet published.
(12) Commission Decision of 21 May 2003, OJ L 263, 14.10.2003.
(13) Commission Decision of 16 July 2003, not yet published.

(2004/C 78 E/0933)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3932/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject: Sexual exploitation of children

The recent report by the German section of Unicef on child exploitation states that the phenomenon is
growing with particular speed in western, northern and southern Slovakia and Moldova. There are
numerous other studies informing us that young girls and boys are offered voluntarily or pimped by their
own parents. The child trafficking routes mentioned are from Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, Finland and the
Baltic states to the EU, in particular to Germany and the Netherlands, and also from Romania to Italy,
Turkey and Cyprus. According to statistics published by the United Nations in Berlin on 30 October 2003,
children are increasingly forming part of the illegal sex industry, charging prices ranging from EUR 5 to
EUR 25.

What is the Commission’s position on these facts? In view of the increasing risks that enlargement will
bring with it, does it intend to take specific measures and initiatives in 2004 to reduce this phenomenon?
Does it have a report on the Union’s policies that have been implemented to date to deal with this
scourge? What does it believe are the reasons for the lack of success in combating these phenomena?