You are on page 1of 2

C 82/120 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 3.

98

Even if the penalty that has been imposed for a violation of national law might appear to be very heavy it does
not, at first sight, constitute any violation of Community competition law, and there is no information indicating
that trade between Member States has been affected.

Therefore the Commission has no intention at present to take any action.

(98/C 82/196) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2639/97


by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1997)

Subject: Fish withdrawn under minimum price scheme

Can the Commission provide details by EU Member State of the tonnage and value of fish withdrawn from the
market under the Commission minimum price scheme, broken down by species and by producer organization for
each of the last four years?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission


(15 September 1997)

The data showing the quantities withdrawn under the Community withdrawal price scheme, for the period
1993-1996 broken down by species and by Member State is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the
Parliament’s Secretariat. Data by producer organization is not available.

Concerning the value of the species withdrawn from the market, reference is made to the annual publication of
the withdrawal prices (for the 1997 fishing campaign, the Honourable Member is referred to Regulation (EC)
No 2427/96 fixing for the 1997 fishing year, the withdrawal and selling prices for fishery products listed in
Annex I (A), (D) and (E) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3579/92 (1)).

The budget for the financial compensations within the Community withdrawal scheme has amounted to between
12 and 20 MECU per year during the period 1993-1996.

(1) OJ L 331, 20.12.1996.

(98/C 82/197) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2645/97


by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission
(1 September 1997)

Subject: Activities of the Conflict Prevention Network and its implications for the Commission

The bureau of the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee received an invitation to attend a meeting on 16
July 1997 in Brussels concerning the situation in Cyprus. The invitation was issued by the Conflict Prevention
Network (CNP), which receives Commission funding and uses its name, together with the European Union
emblem, on its logotype.

The letter of invitation also indicates that ‘the admission of the Greek section of the island alone, as a result of
Greek pressure within the EU, will, in the long term, lead to a dramatic geostrategic shift in the south-eastern
Mediterranean’.

The inaccurate nature of such observations concerning the future accession of Cyprus and the spirit behind them
give a wholly distorted and imprecise picture of the situation on the island.

The meeting in question was cancelled following a timely response by the bureau of the Joint Parliamentary
Committee. Nevertheless, this is a particularly serious matter since the Commission is revealed to be funding a
body which is, in fact, propagating official positions adopted by Turkey, which has for 23 years, been occupying
37% of Cyprus.
17. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 82/121

What view does the Commission take of the above ‘initiative’? What funding is being received by the CNP? Who
is contributing and what criteria were applied in deciding to espouse its cause?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission


(24 September 1997)

On the basis of the Resolution on conflict prevention, adopted by the Parliament on 15 June 1995, requesting the
Commission to set up a body responsible for collecting information on conflicts for the purpose of analysis and
the drafting of proposals, the Commission has launched a pilot project for one to two years. The pilot programme
‘Crisis prevention network’ (CPN) consists of studies, briefs, advice and evaluations aiming to augment
non-governmental analysis capacity on conflict prevention. It serves as a tool of information and analysis for
both the Commission and the Parliament on conflict prevention issues. Any study or advice can be used by the
institutions in their respective institutional responsibilities, without binding these institutions.

The work programme of the CPN is guided by a group of experts from the Parliament, academia and the
Commission. At present, seven members of the Parliament participate in the group of experts. CPN is managed
by Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik in Ebenhausen (Germany) and is directed by Dr Rummel. The contract with
the Stiftung was awarded after an open tender procedure. The total value of the contract of the CPN is
ECU 646 000.

The programme of the confidential briefing discussion on Cyprus planned by the CPN was not approved by the
Commission and the text of the invitation does not represent the views of the Commission.

(98/C 82/198) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2647/97


by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission
(1 September 1997)

Subject: Brewery ties/Inntrepreneur Pub Company Limited

Tenants of ‘Inntrepreneur’ Pub Company Limited and similar companies in my constituency entered into
agreements with Inntrepreneur on the basis that their business would be free of the tie by 1998 and on the premise
that the tied trade agreement would entitle them to discounts, support and concessions that would compensate for
the loss of discounts available on the ‘free’ market. Inntrepreneur have reneged on their agreements to release all
their tied houses, tenants have not commercially benefited from the arrangements but have in fact been
significantly disadvantaged compared to those operating in the free market.

Under these circumstances, can the Commission please confirm that in order to ensure a fair and competitive
trading environment, it will reject Inntrepreneur Pub Company Limited’s application for a special exemption to
Article 85/1 of the Treaty of Rome?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission


(16 September 1997)

Inntrepreneur has asked the Commission to look into its standard agreements. In the Commission's view, the
Inntrepreneur lease in common with most other standard leases used in the United Kingdom does not fulfil a
technical requirement of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the
Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements, the so called ‘beer block exemption’ (1). The problem
concerns the specification of the beer tie by type, rather than by brand.

In considering whether such standard leases may be exempted by specific decision the Commission must check
whether all the conditions of Article 85 (3) of the EC Treaty are fulfilled. In such examinations the Commission,
using average figures, takes into account the overall effect of the network of standard leases in question. It is
within this context that the Commission has been examining, primarily on the basis of a report by the Office of