Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-07-23-Speech-5-019"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990723.3.5-019"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I should like to begin by responding to the words of Maij-Weggen. The point is well made and well taken. I know that she feels strongly about this and that she is not alone in that.
That is the silver lining. It is a pity that first there had to be a cloud.
Whilst I obviously cannot commit my colleague, Mrs Loyola de Palacio, who is happily a Member of this House at the present time, to the development of her policy and approach in this House, there are several who feel that the time is right for further discussion between the Commission and Parliament on some of the procedures and conventions of this House, which obviously meets in more than one place, as well as the conventions and procedures of the College. I hope that discussion can proceed without great delay because there could be developments which would be of mutual benefit and would actually promote accountability and transparency in the service of the Union.
On the question before the House, I would like to make the following statement on behalf of the Commission. This week, the Commission issued a formal legal decision against the local organisers of last year's football World Cup tournament in France. The organisers were the CFO. That decision followed the organisation's use of discriminatory sales arrangements for tickets for matches.
As the House will recall, in 1996 and 1997 the system used by CFO favoured consumers who were able to provide an address in France. In the view of the Commission, that constituted an abuse of the organisation's dominant position in the market which is contrary to Article 82 of the Treaty. This was the first case in Community history in which Article 82 of the Treaty has been used to penalise a discriminatory practice that harms the interests of consumers without having a significant effect on the market. In reaching its decision therefore, the Commission took account of the fact that there were no previous decisions of the Commission or case-law from the Court of Justice to guide CFO in its ticketing policy. In addition it was evident that the ticketing arrangements used by CFO in 1996 and 1997 were exactly similar to those employed in previous World Cup tournaments and other similar major international contests.
As the House will recall, the Commission responded to complaints from people outside France who were finding it impossible to buy tickets by beginning an investigation. The CFO then quickly changed its policy and made efforts to make sure that tickets sold in 1998 were available without discrimination. Then 100, 000 tickets became available to everyone on a first-come-first-served basis.
The Commission judged that these factors – the unprecedented application of the law, the conventions relating to
previous ticket sales for international tournaments, and the constructive action of CFO – justified a symbolic rather than a punitive fine. In addition, it is relevant to add that a more substantial fine on the organisers of the 1998 World Cup in France would have imposed an obligation on the Commission to consider action against the organisers of previous major tournaments who used exactly the same ticketing policies. This could have meant, for example, action against the organisers of the 1996 European Championship because on that occasion, supporters benefitted from a sales scheme which favoured nationals over fans from abroad.
The French organising committee is not a normal commercial profit-seeking company. It exists for the interests of football and it is important to recognise that all profits reverted to the game of football. Fining the French organising committee means taking money away from grassroots football and from the promotion of the game and putting that money into the coffers of the European Commission. I do not believe that any genuine lover of football would think that was either sensible or acceptable.
I know that football supporters in parts of the Union have strongly criticised the size of the EUR 1, 000 fine. My colleagues and I can certainly understand such reactions when those reactions are not informed by the facts. I hope, however, that in this House and elsewhere, there will be recognition of the specific factors directly relevant to this case. The important – and I think the instructive – outcome of the case is plain. All future sports tournament organisers now clearly know that any ticketing arrangements must comply fully with European Community competition rules and be non-discriminatory. Secondly, they know that the Commission will not hesitate to take action against any organiser that fails to comply with those rules. Thirdly, they know that the symbolic approach could only be followed once, and in very particular circumstances.
These realities, in the view of the Commission, mean that standards of fair treatment for sports fans have been clarified and strengthened. They will definitely enjoy protection against discrimination in the future. The organisers of the Euro−2000 Cup in Belgium and the Netherlands have, for instance, contacted the Commission and as a result, they have adapted their sales system to meet the requirements of Community law. There has been no previous occasion on which a higher percentage of tickets has been made available to the general public with absolutely equal rights for all citizens of the European Union. We intend to keep it that way."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples