WRITTEN QUESTION P-3061/98

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: State aid for RAI - the Italian broadcasting corporation

In its reply to written question E-0577/98(1) on State aid for RAI, the Commission is basically reticent and does not say whether or not it intends to adopt a formal position with regard to the complaint in respect of public subsidies for RAI in the foreseeable future. It merely refers in general terms to Community competition rules, the new Treaty of Amsterdam and one of its protocols, which have yet to be ratified by more than half the Member States, and says it will adopt a "coherent approach", without going into greater detail, on all cases that have been pending for almost a decade.

This reticence, not to say ambiguity, on the part of the Commission is disconcerting in view of the following:

- the Court of First Instance has found the Commission guilty of failure to take timely action in a similar case;

- the market concerned is very important for economic operators and consumers and is growing significantly because of technological developments and the associated process of convergence between conventional television and audiovisual services and it would therefore seem to be both urgent and important to give investors and consumers legal certainty by providing them with a clear framework of regulations and guarantees;

- the growing direct competition between traditional subsidised public service television and private television raises the urgent question of distortion of conditions of competition and the need to establish transparent accounting rules for the funding of public services that are defined by objective criteria;

The Commission:

1. Will it adopt a clear stance as soon as possible, in line with its institutional obligations, that will avoid further court rulings against it for as failure to act on complaints still pending on State aid to public television and help to provide legal certainty and protection for economic operators and consumers?

2. More specifically, can it say whether, in the absence of transparent accounting rules and a clear definition of public service broadcasting, the use of public funds to finance programmes for what are clearly commercial purposes may constitute a breach of Community competition rules?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1998)

In answer to the Honourable Member's written question E-577/98(2), the Commission confirmed the existence of a complaint, lodged on 19 June 1996, against RAI (Radiotelevisione Italiana S.p.A.), concerning breaches of Community law on state aid.

Since the liberalisation of the broadcasting sector is a phenomenon which started only in the 1980s and given the complexity of the analysis required, the Commission has taken a prudent approach in regard to state aid complaints in this sector. However, as the Honourable Member mentions, the Commission has been condemned by the Court of first instance recently for failing to act within a reasonable time and with the necessary diligence. This is the first time that this has occurred in the state aid domain. The ruling of the Court of first instance confirms the responsibility of the Commission in the area.

When several complaints occur in an area where no specific guidelines exist it has always been considered as good policy to draw up guidelines first so as to enable the Commission to scrutinise the individual cases in a coherent and transparent way. The Commission services thus prepared a discussion paper, presenting the problems at stake and asking Member States to provide their opinions and possible solutions.

However, as most of the Member States consulted seem to dislike the idea of guidelines, the Commission will now proceed with the individual cases, all the more so since the Court of first instance could again condemn the Commission for inactivity.

In the meantime, the Commission will continue to seek the views of all parties involved, i.e. public and private broadcasters as well as other interested parties. In taking this responsibility as required by the Treaty and the Court of first instance, the Commission will act in full conformity with the requirements of fair competition between private and public broadcasters and in respect of the crucial task which public broadcasters have been given by the national authorities.

(1) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 3.

(2) OJ C 310, 15.12.1998.