quinta-feira, 31 de janeiro de 2008

Comissão impõe multa à E.ON por esta ter quebrado um selo no decurso de uma investigação por práticas restritivas

A Comissão impõs uma multa de 38 milhões de euros à E.ON por esta ter quebrado um selo no decurso de uma investigação não anunciada por práticas restritivas. O selo destinava-se a salvaguardar a inviolabilidade de uma sala, onde a Comissão ainda não tinha feito qualquer investigação (e onde seria suposto continuar a investigar no dia seguinte)...
A E.ON para se furtar à multa negou que tenha quebrado o selo e que a Comissão era a única detentora da chave referente à sala em questão (embora se tenha vindo a descobrir que havia mais de 20 chaves para aquela sala). Entre outras explicações, a E.ON alegou que o selo estava danificado por causa:
1. da vibração ocorrida na sala contígua, onde estavam a ser feitas obras;
2. utilização de um produto de limpeza agressivo;
3. elevado grau de humidade.
Curiosamente, este nível de coima foi o mesmo que foi aplicado à Portugal Telecom pela Autoridade da Concorrência por abuso de posição dominante.
por recusa de acesso à sua rede de condutas no subsolo aos concorrentes TvTel e Cabovisão...
O comunicado da Comissão diz o seguinte:
The European Commission has imposed a fine of € 38 000 000 on E.ON Energie AG (“E.ON”) for the breach of a Commission seal in E.ON’s premises during an inspection. The seal had been affixed to secure documents collected in the course of an unannounced inspection in May 2006 (see MEMO/06/220). When the Commission came back the next day, the seal was broken. The inspection formed part of the Commission's enforcement activities against allegations of anticompetitive practices on the German energy markets.

Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes commented “The Commission cannot and will not tolerate attempts by companies to undermine the Commission's fight against cartels and other anti-competitive practices by threatening the integrity and effectiveness of our investigations. Companies know very well that high fines are at stake in competition cases, and some may consider illegal measures to obstruct an inquiry and so avoid a fine. This decision sends a clear message to all companies that it does not pay off to obstruct the Commission's investigations."

The seal had been affixed by Commission officials during an unannounced inspection carried out in May 2006. The inspection concerned the suspicion of anticompetitive practices on the German electricity market (see MEMO/06/220). It is the Commission's practice to seal rooms when carrying out surprise inspections in order to make sure that no documents can be removed by the company when the inspection team is absent (e.g. at night).

The Commission's seals are made of plastic film. If they are removed, they do not tear, but show irreversible "VOID" signs on their surface. When the inspection team returned in the morning of the second day of the inspection, it found that such "VOID" signs were clearly visible on the entire surface of one of the seals which had been affixed the evening before. Also pieces of glue were found around the seal indicating that somebody had removed the seal and tried to fix it again. The broken seal was intended to secure the room in which all documents previously collected by the Commission, i.e. highly sensitive documents, were stored. As these documents were not yet listed, the Commission was unable to ascertain whether and which documents were taken by EON.

E.ON denied breaking the seal and first argued that the Commission had the only key to the room. However later it turned out that 20 keys were in circulation among E.ON employees. E.ON also tried to argue that there might be other explanations for the appearance of the "VOID" signs on the seal. E.ON's suggested explanations were inter alia:
vibrations caused by the preparation of a conference next door
1. the use of an aggressive cleaning product
2. the age of the seal, and
3. a high level of humidity .

In order to assess these arguments, the Commission carried out a very thorough investigation, including the use of outside experts to test the seals, but came to the conclusion that the arguments are not valid. Both the manufacturer of the seal and the independent expert who tested the Commission's original seals confirmed that the state of the seal as found in the morning of 30 May 2006 cannot be explained by any other reasons than by a breach of the seal. Indeed, according to the manufacturer, similar seals have been in use for decades, without any examples of malfunction.

The use of seals is intended to prevent the possibility of evidence being lost during an inspection, thus undermining the effectiveness of the inspection. Breaches of seals are therefore a serious infringement of competition law. As regards the level of the fine, Council Regulation 1/2003 (Article 23(1) (e)) provides that the Commission can impose a fine of up to 1% of the company's total turnover for a seal broken intentionally or negligently. When fixing the amount of the fine, the Commission has, however, taken into account the fact that it was the first time that a seal has been broken by a company subject to an inspection and that a fine has been imposed under the provisions of Regulation No 1/2003 concerning obstruction or interference with a Commission anti-trust investigation.

Fiscalidade: Comissão recorre a Tribunal devido à legislação de amnistia fiscal discriminatória aprovada por Portugal em 2005


A Comissão Europeia decidiu apresentar queixa contra Portugal junto do Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades Europeias devido à sua legislação de amnistia fiscal de 2005, que permitiu a regularização de investimentos em obrigações do Estado português a uma taxa de penalização preferencial de 2,5% (em vez de 5% para quaisquer outros elementos patrimoniais). A Comissão considera que a amnistia fiscal não respeita a livre circulação de capitais, ao dissuadir a regularização de elementos patrimoniais de outros tipos que não obrigações do Estado português.

«As regras do mercado interno proíbem qualquer discriminação dos investimentos realizados por sujeitos passivos de um Estado-Membro noutros Estados-Membros», declarou o Membro da Comissão László Kovács, responsável pela fiscalidade e pela união aduaneira. «Os investimentos realizados noutros Estados-Membros devem ser tributados da mesma forma que os realizados no Estado-Membro de residência, mesmo no caso de amnistias fiscais».

A lei designada «regularização tributária de elementos patrimoniais que se encontravam no exterior (RERT)», aprovada pelo Parlamento português em 2005, constitui uma restrição à livre circulação de capitais garantida pelo Tratado CE. A referida lei permite a declaração e a regularização de elementos patrimoniais que não se encontrem no território português mediante a entrega de uma declaração confidencial até 16 de Dezembro de 2005. Exige que os sujeitos passivos residentes paguem uma importância igual a 5% do valor dos investimentos em causa. No entanto, é aplicada uma taxa de imposto reduzida de 2,5% às obrigações do Estado português regularizadas, bem como a qualquer montante de outros investimentos reinvestidos em obrigações do Estado português até à data do procedimento de regularização.

As pessoas que beneficiaram da amnistia foram, assim, dissuadidas de manter os seus elementos patrimoniais regularizados sob formas que não obrigações do Estado português. Esta diferença de tratamento constitui uma restrição à livre circulação de capitais, consagrada no artigo 56.º do Tratado CE.

O número de referência do processo da Comissão é 2005/4932 (Portugal).

Os comunicados de imprensa sobre processos por infracção no domínio fiscal ou aduaneiro podem ser consultados em:
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/common/infringements/infringement_cases/index_en.htm

As últimas informações gerais sobre medidas por infracção tomadas contra os Estados-Membros podem ser consultadas em:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/index_en.htm

Comissão Europeia refere Portugal para o Tribunal de Justiça. Golden shares do Estado na Portugal Telecom

Free movement of capital: Commission refers Portugal to the European Court of Justice over special rights held by the State/public entities in Portugal Telecom


The European Commission has decided to refer Portugal to the European Court of Justice as it considers that the special rights held by the State in Portugal Telecom discourage investment from other Member States in violation of EC Treaty rules.

In the privatisation of Portugal Telecom, the State and other public entities were allocated privileged shares (A-shares). Although the number of A-shares was reduced over the successive privatisation phases, their privileges, as defined in the Articles of Association of Portugal Telecom, were maintained. These privileges include special powers to appoint one third of the board and the chairman of the Company, as well as veto powers on the election of Directors and the audit board. They also include other important corporate decisions such as distributions of profits; capital increases; bond issues; opening of branches and changes in the registered office; changes in the Articles of Association; and the approval of the acquisition of holdings above 10% of the company's ordinary shares by shareholders engaged in a competing activity. The Commission considers that, in violation of EC Treaty rules, these special powers constitute an unjustified restriction on the free movement of capital and the right of establishment (Articles 56 and 43 of the EC Treaty), in so far as they hinder both direct investment and portfolio investment.

Following the reply of the Portuguese authorities to the letter of formal notice (IP/05/1594), the Commission invited Portugal to abandon the special rights held by the State and public entities in Portugal Telecom (IP/06/440). The Commission considers Portugal's arguments in defence of the special rights unsatisfactory in the light of the relevant Court of Justice case law.
Portugal argues that the special rights are rights with a private-law character and are justified and compatible with the EC Treaty. Portugal also argues that the rights are applied in a non-discriminatory way and based on reasons of security and public order as well as on other imperative reasons of general interest.

In the Commission's opinion, the special rights of the Portuguese State in the company go beyond what is necessary to meet their intended objectives.


The latest information on infringement proceedings concerning all Member States can be found at:http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/index_en.htm