WRITTEN QUESTION E-4127/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Recovery of competitiveness for certain mountain areas

Article 88(3) of the Treaty on European Union stipulates that the Commission shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid.

The purpose of this is to check whether a project is compatible with the common market, under the terms of Article 87. Paragraph 3(c) of that article states that aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, may be considered compatible with the common market. Clearly, the aid granted to certain mountain areas as an incentive to the hotel industry or to modernise mountain transport facilities at rates far in excess (70-80 %) of those authorised under the Treaty of Amsterdam is bound to affect trading conditions (in terms of tourist services) in relation to other mountain areas which receive aid at rates of 7,5 % in the case of large companies or 15 % for small and medium-sized undertakings. This difference in conditions significantly reduces the competitiveness of areas which comply with the rules on state aids in relation to those that do not.

Is the Commission aware of specific cases of the above and what is its view on the matter? Does it not consider that areas which comply with the Treaty provisions on aid have become less competitive and have lost direct to areas or regions which have illegally received aid in excess of the amounts authorised? If so, what measures does it intend to take to restore balanced competition and what measures will it promote to offset the loss of competitiveness of areas which have suffered as a result of this problem?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2001)

The Commission is currently examining several complaints relating to state aid granted to mechanical lift firms. For example, a complaint lodged by the Province of Bolzano against state aid that had been granted led to the initiation on 4 August 2000 of the procedure under Article 88(2) (formerly Article 93) of the EC Treaty(1).

The Commission is not aware of aid other than that mentioned having been granted in connection with hotel structures or mechanical lift infrastructures and not comply with the Community rules on state aid.

It would, however, be grateful if the Honourable Member would communicate to it any information that would allow it to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity with the Member State or States concerned on the basis of Chapter III (Procedure regarding unlawful aid) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 88 of the EC Treaty(2).

The Community state aid rules specify precise aid ceilings: those for regional aid differ according to whether the region falls within Article 87(3)(a) or (c) (formerly Article 92) and whether it is a normal region, an outermost region or a region with low population density (cf. guidelines on national regional aid); the aid ceilings for small and medium-sized enterprises are 15 % and 7,5 % respectively. Compliance with these rules safeguards competition between firms in different regions or areas.

If the Commission finds that state aid is incompatible with the EC Treaty, is unlawful or does not comply with the ceilings set, it may decide that, in order to restore the conditions of competition, a Member State should take all the measures necessary to recover the aid from the recipient.

(1) OJ C 27, 27.1.2001.

(2) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.