WRITTEN QUESTION E-0031/04 by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Practices of some Luxembourg insurance companies.
Date: 2004-01-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Luxembourg, company law, competition law, consultancy, freedom to provide services, general mechanical engineering, insurance company, interpretation of the law, restriction on competition

C 84 E/296

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

environmenta and technological improvements of the company’s factories in Sant Joan les Fonts (Girona,
4 operations) and Térmens (Lleida, 2 operations). Concerning the European Regional Development Fund
(ERDF) the same national authorities have confirmed that no subvention have been allowed to this
company.

The Commission has no information about possible transport of by-products obtained by this company
from Spain to other Member States.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules

concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, OJ L 273, 10.10.2002.

(2004/C 84 E/0343)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0031/04

by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Practices of some Luxembourg insurance companies

Since the beginning of 2004, some insurance companies in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg have
required independent experts in the automobile sector to work with the Belgian loss adjuster Informex.

Does the Commission take the view that this practice is compatible with the principle of the free
movement of services established by Articles 14 and 49 of the EC Treaty? If not, what measures will it take
to put an end to these discriminatory practices?

Some of the companies involved prescribe which garage their clients must use for their repairs.

Does not the Commission share my view that that practice infringes the principle of the free movement of
services established by Articles 14 and 49 of the EC Treaty referred to above? If so, is it prepared to take
the measures required to put an end thereto?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. However,
The Commission has taken note of
in accordance with Article 49 of
the information provided by the
the EC Treaty and in light of
Honourable Member, the Commission is not able to act in this case in accordance with the infringement
procedure provided for in Article 226 of the EC Treaty because the facts refer to existing contractual
relations between several private entities.

The provisions of the EC Treaty which relate to providing services are formally addressed to the Member
States. Although this does not mean that rights cannot be conferred simultaneously on any individual who
may be affected by the observance of the rules, as defined here, contesting the practices of private entities
falls mainly within the competence of the national courts. In fact, it is established case law that it is firstly
the responsibility of national courts to apply Community law and to establish the implications of the case
law of the Court of Justice within the procedural framework. Since it is a question of the interpretation of
Community law, it is necessary in any event to mention the possibility for national courts to use the
mechanism of the preliminary question provided for in Article 234 of the EC Treaty to obtain an
interpretation of the provisions of Community law from the Court of Justice, which alone has jurisdiction
in this respect.

If the choice of Informex by each insurance company was made in cooperation with competing companies
and not independently, such cooperation could be interpreted under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. This
Article prohibits agreements between companies which are likely to affect trade between Member States
and which are aimed at restricting competition. However, the Commission does not have any information
which indicates that such cooperation might exist.