6.3.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52 E/39 This general regulation sets out the competition rules applicable to all distribution sectors except motor vehicles, where the above-mentioned proposal provides for a stricter regime. This general regulation is based on a more economic approach, and Article 4(d) does not cover the restriction of cross-supplies between distributors within a selective distribution system, including between distributors operating at different levels of trade. Such a system prohibits manufacturers from limiting the supply of retail distributors from independent importers that have not been assigned to them. By the same token, manufacturers may not prevent independent importers from selling to the same ‘retail distributors’ if they so desire. However, in the cases in Luxembourg referred to, there is insufficient evidence of the type of distribution envisaged to be able to ascertain whether or not the behaviour mentioned is likely to constitute an infringement. If evidence of anti-competitive behaviour were brought to the Commission’s attention, it would definitely examine it in order to establish whether there were grounds to launch the necessary infringement procedures to put a stop to such behaviour. (1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995. (2) OJ L 336, 29.12.1999. (3) Guidelines on vertical restraints, OJ C 291, 13.10.2000. (2003/C 52 E/049) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1139/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council (22 April 2002) Subject: EU measures to take effective steps against continuing colonisation, destruction and eviction activities by Israel in the Palestinian territories 1. If Israel’s policy which has changed under Sharon continues, as does disregard for United Nations Resolutions Nos 181, 194, 242/338 and 1397, what should the consequences be for the Association Agreement between the EU and Israel, in particular Article 2 of this agreement which deals with the infringement of human rights and the associated sanctions? 2. What consequences should Israel’s altered policy have for the level at which EU Member States’ diplomatic relations with Israel are continued? 3. What consequences should Israel’s altered policy have for the purchase of weapons from the Israeli defence industry and for the sale of weapons by EU Member States to Israel? 4. What consequences should Israel’s altered policy have for international trials of those responsible for war crimes in the occupied territories? 5. How will compensation be made for the improvement projects in the Palestinian area which have been destroyed on the instructions of the Israeli government and which were financed or co-financed by contributions from the EU or from individual Member States? 6. If no other forms of pressure are effective, what should the consequences be for transport links with Israel, namely El Al’s landing rights at various airports in the EU, flights by various airlines from the EU to the Israeli airport of Lod (Ben Gurion) for scheduled services and Eilat for holiday charter flights, for the regular liner services of the Poseidon Lines and Salamis Lines from the Greek port of Piraeus via Rhodes and Limassol to the Israeli port of Haifa and for access for ships of the Israel shipping line ZIM? C 52 E/40 Official Journal of the European Union EN 6.3.2003 Reply (5 November 2002) The Council would remind the Honourable Member of the position it adopted when the Union was preparing the November 2001 meeting of the EU/Israel Association Council. It would point out that arms sales to Israel continue to be governed by the EU’s Code of Conduct on arms exports. As the Council has stated in replies to questions by other Honourable Members, it reserves the right to claim reparation in appropriate fora for damage caused to infrastructure financed in whole or in part by the EU. (2003/C 52 E/050) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1151/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (22 April 2002) Subject: EU-US competition for the trade in works of art and alternative methods of maintaining the European share 1. Can the Commission confirm the findings of a study by The European Fine Art Foundation (TEFAF) that in 1999 EU countries imported works of art worth EUR 1,53 billion and exported works of art worth EUR 1,81 billion and that the European share of the international art market has fallen by 7 % over the past four years while the American share has risen by 7 %? 2. Do these figures imply only that dealers are moving their activities outside Europe because of higher profit margins, or does it also imply that increasing numbers of works of art produced in Europe are leaving this continent to be purchased by wealthy people, in particular Americans, elsewhere? 3. Have the figures given in (1) above been used by TEFAF in its contacts with the Commission to oppose the maintenance or introduction of legislative and administrative provisions to regulate the market within the EU, such as import duties on art and resale rights? 4. How does the Commission view TEFAF’s argument that it is more favourable for dealers to export their art holdings to America and to sell them in that country as there is no taxation and royalty obligations do not apply for 70 years, thus making the seller’s profit margin higher while the works of art are still cheaper for the purchasers? 5. Does the Commission consider that there are opportunities to alter the figures in a completely different way from that requested by TEFAF, for example by introducing or extending export duties which make it less attractive to sell works of art from EU Member States outside EU territory? 6. What other steps might the Commission consider taking to deal with this problem in the years ahead? Source: ‘de Volkskrant’ newspaper, 8 March 2002 Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (12 June 2002) The Honourable Member is concerned about the competition between the Community and the United States for the trade in works of art. All of the six questions arise from the findings of a recent study, published by the European Fine Art Foundation (TEFAF), the organiser of the annual Maastricht International Fine Art and Antiques Fair. The Commission recently answered another Written Question concerning the same study, P-0861/02 from Lord Inglewood (1). On top of that previous reply, the Commission would like to make the following comments..