# CE2004084EN.01059202.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/592 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/592

---

(2004/C 84 E/0669)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0470/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   State aid to the Rome milk plant

Subject:

Following privatisation of the Rome milk plant, a number of complaints were made concerning alleged irregularities in the privatisation procedure. Subsequently, the Commission found that the aid provided by the Municipality of Rome to the municipal milk plant Azienda Communale Centrale del Latte (ACCL) constituted State aid in a sector in which there is considerable intra-Community trade. The Commission also found that over the period 1992 to 1997 the Municipality of Rome had written off ACCL's annual losses amounting to LIT 96,6 billion and took the view that these write-offs were to be regarded as the granting of public aid in breach of Articles 87, 88 and 89 of the EC Treaty. The Commission therefore concluded that ACCL had received an undue economic and financial advantage over its competitors in Italy and other EU countries which had not benefited from contributions of this kind. Article 3 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1255/1999 (1) was therefore applicable in full. Consequently, by Decision of 11 April 2000, notified under reference C(2000) 1173 (2), the Commission ordered the Italian government to recover from ACCL the aid granted to write off its losses during the financial years 1992 to 1997 in an amount of LIT 96,6 billion, together with interest running from the date on which the aid was made available until the date of its actual recovery.

1

2

So far, however, the amounts wrongly paid have not been recovered by the relevant Italian authorities and no recovery procedures are underway, despite the fact that the European Commission has sent the Italian government a letter of reminder asking it to verify whether the amounts have actually been recovered.

Can the Commission answer the following:

| 1. | Who complained to the Commission about these operations in 1996? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Who complained to the Commission about these operations in 1996?

| 2. | Which Italian authorities were notified of the Commission's decision and did those authorities inform the Commission of the timetable and procedures for recovering the amounts involved within the following two months, as required by that decision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Which Italian authorities were notified of the Commission's decision and did those authorities inform the Commission of the timetable and procedures for recovering the amounts involved within the following two months, as required by that decision?

| 3. | Which other entities, apart from the Italian government, then had to be informed and by which Community bodies? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Which other entities, apart from the Italian government, then had to be informed and by which Community bodies?

| 4. | Who in fact should have received the notification and who should have acted upon it? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Who in fact should have received the notification and who should have acted upon it?

| 5. | Are there any rules governing the recovery of such amounts and is there a limitation period for recovery? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are there any rules governing the recovery of such amounts and is there a limitation period for recovery?

| 6. | Has the Commission applied to the Court of Justice under Article 88(2) following the Italian government's failure to notify it of the measures taken to comply with the Commission decision by 19 December 2000 and, if not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Has the Commission applied to the Court of Justice under Article 88(2) following the Italian government's failure to notify it of the measures taken to comply with the Commission decision by 19 December 2000 and, if not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

(30 March 2004)

On 11 April 2000 the Commission adopted Decision 2000/628/EC regarding the aids granted by Italy to the Azienda Comunale Centrale del Latte di Roma.

| 1. | As indicated in the above-mentioned Decision, the investigation on the State aid granted to the Rome milk plant was initiated in 1996 following a complaint of an individual. |
| --- | --- |

1.

As indicated in the above-mentioned Decision, the investigation on the State aid granted to the Rome milk plant was initiated in 1996 following a complaint of an individual.

| 2. | Commission Decision 2000/628/EC was notified by the Commission to the Italian State, via the Permanent Representation of Italy to the European Union. From the Commission file it does not appear that the timetable and the procedures for recovering the amounts involved were communicated to the Commission within two months. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Commission Decision 2000/628/EC was notified by the Commission to the Italian State, via the Permanent Representation of Italy to the European Union. From the Commission file it does not appear that the timetable and the procedures for recovering the amounts involved were communicated to the Commission within two months.

| 3. and 4. | Following the notification of a decision from the Commission to a Member State, the Member State is responsible for the implementation of the Commission decision within its jurisdiction. Save as otherwise provided by Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (3), no other entities have to be directly informed by the Commission. The Commission informs the public of the final decisions adopted by it through their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, as happened in this case. |
| --- | --- |

3. and 4.

Following the notification of a decision from the Commission to a Member State, the Member State is responsible for the implementation of the Commission decision within its jurisdiction. Save as otherwise provided by Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (3), no other entities have to be directly informed by the Commission. The Commission informs the public of the final decisions adopted by it through their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, as happened in this case.

3

| 5. | The rules governing the recovery of State aids and the limitation period for recovery are set out in Article 14 and Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The rules governing the recovery of State aids and the limitation period for recovery are set out in Article 14 and Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999.

| 6. | The Commission has not referred the case to the Court of Justice under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty. The Commission is in the process of verifying what measures the Italian State has taken to comply with the above-mentioned Decision regarding the aids granted by Italy to the Azienda Comunale Centrale del Latte di Roma. If after this verification, the Commission is informed that Italy has not complied with the said Decision, as stated by Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission may, in derogation from the provisions of Articles 226 and 227, refer the matter to the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Commission has not referred the case to the Court of Justice under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty. The Commission is in the process of verifying what measures the Italian State has taken to comply with the above-mentioned Decision regarding the aids granted by Italy to the Azienda Comunale Centrale del Latte di Roma. If after this verification, the Commission is informed that Italy has not complied with the said Decision, as stated by Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission may, in derogation from the provisions of Articles 226 and 227, refer the matter to the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48.

1

(2)  OJ L 265, 19.10.2000, p. 15.

2

(3)  OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

3

---