WRITTEN QUESTION E-1900/00

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE), Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) and Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Outdated structures in Greek agriculture and distortion of competition: unlawful practices by ATE and the reimbursement of illegal aid by AGNO

One of the outdated structures in Greek agriculture is the Agricultural Bank of Greece (ATE) which, by practising an interventionist policy, has created unfair competition, distortions and illegal monopolistic financial practices in this sector. In its recent decision of 1 March 2000 the Commission requested (1) the return of 2,5 billion drachmas wrongfully received by AGNO, the dairy cooperative organisation, (2) information on the take-over of AGNO by ATE, (3) information on the relationship of the Greek state with ATE and (4) the dossier on partnership arrangements by the ATE.

On this basis, can the Commission say:

1. how it views Greek agricultural structures and government policy in the agricultural sector in the light of repeated decisions by the Commission on the granting of illegal aid?

2. Does the investigation which led the Commission to take the above decision reveal any abuse by ATE of its dominant position in the Greek agricultural economy, and what measures should be taken to ensure that the rules of competition are adhered to and that farmers and businessmen receive equal treatment?

3. How does the Commission view ATE's take-over of AGNO and ATE's relationship with the Greek state, and what do ATE and the Greek Government undertake to do in the future in order to comply with the Community legal order concerning aid and competition?

4. Why did the Commission delay so much in taking this decision and why was the decision not announced when it was taken in March?

5. In the decision of 1 March 2000, was account taken of the viability of AGNO and, if so, what measures are envisioned to ensure its survival?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2000)

1. The Commission has no general position on the Greek government policy in the agricultural sector. In certain cases, the Commission considered that the write-offs of loans to companies, co-operatives and farmers constituted state aid incompatible with the Treaty rules.

2. The Commission decision of 1 March 2000 does not concern abuse of dominant position by the agricultural bank of Greece (ATE) in the Greek agricultural economy in the meaning of Article 82 (ex Article 86) of the EC Treaty. However, the Commission may launch an investigation of the relations between the Greek state and the ATE, which would primarily concern state aids to the agricultural undertakings. If relevant, the Commission may also address possible anti-competitive practices of the ATE in the agricultural sector.

3. The Commission does not yet have a definitive position on the implications in terms of state aid of the takeover of AGNO by ATE. It has requested additional information from the Greek authorities in the scope of the above-mentioned decision.

4. The time from the opening of Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty procedure to the final decision (2 years and 2 months) is in line with the complexity of the file. The Commission does not normally announce in advance the issuing of its state aid decisions.

5. In its decision of 1 March 2000, the Commission considered that the aid scheme put in effect by Article 5 of Greek law nr. 2237/94 (and the individual aid granted to AGNO pursuant to that scheme) did not respect the relevant Community guidelines for rescuing and restructuring companies in difficulty.