EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/576

(2004/C 88 E/0589)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1201/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject: Municipality of Rome — failure to comply with Commission Decision 2000/628/EC in relation to State aid granted to ACCL

From the answer of 30 March 2004 to question E-0470/04 (1), it emerges that the documents in the Commission's possession do not indicate that it was notified of the deadlines and procedures for recovering the amounts concerned within two months of the above decision, as required by the relevant rules. Furthermore, is not clear how the Commission, when examining the alleged irregularities in State aid granted to ACCL, subsequently found to be justified, failed to take account of the earlier opinion from the advisers J P Morgan charged with drafting a business plan. In 1996 J P Morgan had in fact drawn attention to an incompatibility with Community regulations on State aid involving public funds, in breach of Articles 87, 88 and 89 of the EC Treaty, on pages 36 and 37 and pages 198 and 199 of the report annexed to the deliberations of the Rome Municipal Council No 145 of 28 July 1997.

Consequently, the Municipality of Rome was aware since 1996 that the procedure for privatising ACCL was incompatible with the common market and that it could never have repaid the amounts after privatisation.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. How was it that the Commission failed to take account of J P Morgan's considered opinion when it examined the actual reliability of the valuation of the company's assets to be transferred by the Municipality of Rome?

2. How was it that the Commission, being aware of the J P Morgan opinion, did not consider that it should have imposed penalties in respect of the privatisation arrangements that were based on a deliberate breach of Community rules designed to achieve a fictitious balance in ACCL's accounts for the purposes of selling off this branch of the business?

3. What were the reasons for failure to meet the deadlines for the recovery of amounts set out in Articles 14 and 15 of Regulation EC No 659/1999 (2)?

4. Why has the Commission still not referred the matter to the Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, given that four years have elapsed since the Decision was published in the Official Journal?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

On 11 April 2000 we adopted a decision on the aid granted by Italy to the Azienda Comunale Centrale del Latte di Roma (3).

1. and 2. Before taking the decision we examined and assessed all the documents and explanations provided by the Italian authorities in the course of the procedure.

3. and 4. Under Article 14 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 (4), following notification to the Member State of the Commission decision to recover aid granted unlawfully, it is the Member State that is responsible for recovering the aid without delay using the procedures in force under national legislation. By a letter of 26 January 2004 we requested the Italian authorities to inform us by 25 February 2004 of the action taken to comply with the decision. We are now examining the reply sent by the City of Rome. Under Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 we can refer the matter to the Court of Justice after examining the substance of it on the basis of the information available, if it transpires that Italy has failed to comply with the decision adopted under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ C 84 E, 3.4.2004, p. 592.

(2) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

(3) Commission Decision of 11 April 2000 on the aid granted by Italy to Centrale del Latte di Roma, OJ L 265, 19.10.2000.

(4) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.