WRITTEN QUESTION E-0204/04 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Financial reporting.
Date: 2004-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, bankruptcy, business ethics, dairy industry, financial management, protection of shareholders, publication of accounts

C 84 E/548

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

In the light of the above and since the whole process of integration and cohesion in the European Union is
based on the principle of mutual dialogue and the dismantling of differences and that formal notice was
served to the Italian State on 10 December 2003, with a hearing on 15 January 2004, can the
Commission state:

1. What violations of the Treaty provide the grounds for the Community infringement proceedings?

2. Why the proceedings were suspended and postponed for three months, who requested this suspension

and on what grounds?

3. Whether it is true that Austria exerted significant pressure on the Commission, via the political

apparatus and diplomatic sources, to secure that suspension?

4. How it views the anti-historical presumption of a tutelary role for Austria in Alto Adige/South Tyrol

(Italian territory) based on the obsolete Treaty of Paris?

5. Whether it can foresee a reversal of the decision to postpone proceedings, with these continuing in

accordance with the time limits and procedures laid down, which are equitable to all?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Commission is analysing the legislation relating to the linguistic census of the Province of Bolzano on
the basis of Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the
protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such
data (1), in particular Articles 6.1.c and 8 thereof. Article 6.1.c states that: ‘Member States shall provide that
personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are
collected and/or further processed’. Article 8 offers enhanced protection to sensitive data such as data
revealing ethnic origin. The Directive aims to ensure the functioning of an internal market in accordance
with the EC Treaty, in particular Article 49 thereof, providing for the free flow of personal data between
Member States while at the same time safeguarding the fundamental right to privacy. However, it should
be noted that the Commission has not yet taken any decision on an infringement procedure concerning
the compatibility of the rules on the linguistic census with the provisions mentioned above.

The case is being dealt with under the normal Commission proceedings rules currently applicable to the
handling of complaints.
In the investigation of complaints and established infringements, sincere
co-operation and a climate of mutual confidence between the Commission and the Member State
concerned are required to allow both parties to engage in appropriate discussions in search of a
the Commission has raised with the
Community-compatible solution. With this objective in view,
competent authorities,
in this case the Italian authorities, the different issues that might constitute an
eventual breach of the above-mentioned provisions, and contacts are still on-going.

The Commission has nothing to state on the Treaty of Paris, the provisions of which are not subject to
scrutiny in this case.

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

(2004/C 84 E/0625)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0204/04

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Financial reporting

What benefits does the Commission see for Parmalat shareholders and debtholders in the fact that the
company was reporting on a quarterly basis?

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/549

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2004)

It is not the Commission’s policy to comment on cases that are sub judice.

On a general level, and without referring specifically to the Parmalat case, the Commission believes that
there is a greater likelihood of accounting fraud being detected quickly when companies are required to
present reports or financial statements four times a year rather than just once a year. A shareholder is
likely to have swifter access to information about any cash-flow problems when reports or financial
statements are quarterly rather than annual, provided that the information distributed is not erroneous or
misleading. Fuller information does not make fraud impossible but does enable it to be detected more
easily.

Finally, from a statistical point of view, no firm conclusions or correlations can be drawn from a single
isolated investigation.

(2004/C 84 E/0626)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0205/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Protecting SMEs against multinationals: the case of Ford dealers in Italy

The commercial policy pursued in recent years by the company Ford Italia, centring on the ‘mopping-up’
of leading car dealers and their concentration under the direct control of figurehead companies, has
created great difficulties for the old dealers, with dozens of SMEs deliberately being eliminated from the
market.

Does the Commission not consider this abusive conduct of the multinational Ford in respect of its dealers
to restrict the freedom to compete of SMEs operating in the automotive trade market, and therefore also to
occasion prejudice to the more general interests of the consumer, by creating a situation where there is
unfair competition from companies only ‘autonomous’ of the mother company in appearance?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Like other suppliers, car manufacturers are generally free to distribute their products as they see fit,
providing that their distribution system does not infringe Article 81 or 82 of the EC Treaty. They may
therefore choose to distribute their products through their own outlets, or through car dealers that are
commercially independent.

Ford currently operates a quantitative selective distribution system in Italy. Quantitative selection allows
the car manufacturer to reduce the number of dealers in its network, so long as the contractual notice
periods are respected. As Commission Regulation 1400/2002 (1) makes plain, such a system is permissible
under Article 81 of the EC Treaty, provided that the agreements in question contain none of the serious
restrictions of competition set out in Article 4 of the said regulation, and provided that the conditions set
out in Articles 3 and 5 are met.

Ford’s decision to exclude certain dealers from its network and to move towards a more vertically-
integrated distribution structure is also unlikely to infringe Article 82 of the EC Treaty, since Ford can not
be said to be in a dominant position on the Italian market.