Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 39kWORD 19k
18 April 2019
E-002118-19
Question for written answer E-002118-19
to the Commission
Rule 130
Milan Zver (PPE)

 Subject:  The German competition authority applies European competition law to the sole benefit of German athletes
 Answer in writing 

Recently, the German competition authority (the Bundeskartellamt) applied Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) during a commitment procedure challenging the rules of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the German Olympic Sports Confederation (DOSB).

The commitment of the IOC has not been published in the Bundeskartellamt’s decision. Non-German athletes have been denied status as third parties to the procedure.

The Bundeskartellamt decision benefits only German athletes advertising to the German market.

Non-German athletes who want to advertise to the German market do not benefit from the decision.

The Bundeskartellamt has drawn up new guidelines for the DOSB, to reflect the commitment agreement.

The Bundeskartellamt has stated that the violation of Article 102 of the TFEU is now resolved.

1. Has the Bundeskartellamt violated its duty to apply European competition law by limiting the scope of its decision to only German athletes instead of to all European athletes — and even non-European athletes — especially given that the Bundeskartellamt itself drew up the DOSB and IOC commitment agreements?

2. Has the Bundeskartellamt breached European competition law by expressly stating that the new practice resolves the violation of Article 102 of the TFEU?

Last updated: 6 May 2019Legal notice - Privacy policy