WRITTEN QUESTION P-0966/04 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Chimney sweep monopoly.
Date: 2004-03-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Germany, fire protection, freedom to provide services, heating, infringement procedure (EU), maintenance, monopoly, national implementing measure

C 84 E/700

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

if they were
The situation is all the stranger, given that in Portugal, there are some projects which,
implemented, could resolve the problem, namely the Lisbon and Porto metro strategic expansion plans,
and the Porto suburban trains, amongst other large-scale projects, some of
them supported with
Community funding.

Given what has happened in other EU Member States:

1. What measures does the Commission intend to take, in terms of support mechanisms for companies,
‘inter alia’, to guarantee Sorefame-Bombardier employment
public investment, public competitions,
and high-quality production, and thus help to prevent the worsening of the economic recession in
Portugal?

2. Does the Commission intend to adopt measures to stimulate Portuguese contracts with Sorefame-
Bombardier, to prevent the stopping of assembly lines in the near future, and consequent impact on
jobs, given that Portugal currently suffers from the highest unemployment growth figures in the EU?

3. Does the Commission not believe that what is happening with Sorefame-Bombardier in Portugal,
amongst many other examples, makes it clear that there has to be public intervention in companies of
fundamental strategic importance, i.e. multinationals, in order to guarantee employment, production
and development?

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

On the social impact of Bombardier’s planned closing of European plants, we can add nothing to what we
have already told the Honourable Member in our reply to question E-3672/03 (1).

Suitable measures to help revive strategic industrial sectors such as the one to which the Honourable
Member refers are a responsibility of the Portuguese authorities, which have reached agreement with us on
introduction of mechanisms for supporting enterprises in that sector and on public investment (under the
Economy and Transport Operational Programmes we have approved (2)). All action of this type must be in
line with Community rules and policies, e.g. on public contracts.

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.
(2) C(2000)1774, 28.7.2000; C(2000)2382, 28.7.2000.

(2004/C 84 E/0787)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0966/04

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Subject: Chimney sweep monopoly

The regional monopoly of chimney sweeps that pertains in Germany is in breach of the EU rules on
freedom of establishment (Article 43) and freedom to provide services (Article 49) in the EC Treaty. The
author welcomes the fact that the Commission has launched infringement proceedings.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/701

Can the Commission give an estimate of when the infringement proceedings will end, given that it

1.
may even be necessary to bring a complaint before the Court of Justice of the European Communities?

Can affected parties in the Federal Republic invoke existing EU law and already now contract out
2.
directly to service providers from other EU countries provided that they give guarantees that the emission
and fire protection laws in force in the Federal Republic are complied with?

3.
Since this is of particular relevance to border areas such as the Saarland, will the Commission say
whether it is possible, for the abovementioned competition reasons and also for reasons of consumer
protection, to contract out to service providers such as those from the neighbouring country of France,
provided that German fire protection and emission laws are complied with, particularly where the Member
State in question refuses to transpose current EU legislation, so that the people in question are not
disadvantaged as a result of failure to transpose legislation in a Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The Commission cannot currently estimate how long the infringement proceedings against Germany
1.
concerning the regional monopoly for chimney sweeps will
last. According to the latest available
information, the Federal Government and the Länder are discussing the revision of the legislation in
question with a view to presenting specific proposals in early summer 2004.

The Commission will examine the Federal Government’s proposals to amend the legislation on chimney
sweeps in order to ascertain whether due account has been taken of the Commission’s concerns. If this
analysis fails to produce satisfactory results, the Commission will consider further action under the
infringement procedure. This could involve the adoption of a reasoned opinion followed by a referral to
the Court of Justice.

2. and 3.
As long as the provisions concerning the regional monopoly for chimney sweeps exist, the
affected parties in Germany are obliged to engage local chimney sweeps to sweep and check their
chimneys, and face the threat of penalties if they infringe these rules. The affected parties in Germany do
of course have the right to point out the possible incompatibility of certain provisions with Community
law during administrative procedures or subsequent legal procedures. The primacy of Community law
requires that national law which infringes Community law is examined by the national authorities and
courts and, if appropriate, is not applied (1). Lower courts can also refer questions on the interpretation of
the Treaties to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In cases where Member State courts have the final say,
they are obliged to bring the matter of the compatibility of national law with EU law before the Court of
Justice (Article 234(3) of the EC Treaty).

Under the Treaties establishing the European Communities, the European Court of Justice alone takes the
final decision on whether legal provisions are compatible with EU law. The Commission can reach such a
decision in its role as guardian of the Treaties, but cannot itself make this legally binding. The Court of
Justice can establish that a national law infringes European law and call on the Member State concerned to
amend the law to comply with EU law (Article 228(1) of the EC Treaty). If the Member State fails to do so,
the Court of Justice may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on it (Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty).

(1) ECJ, Case 103/88, ECR 1989, 1839/1871, Point 31.