WRITTEN QUESTION E-3600/00

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: The de minimis rule

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the objectives of the European funds allocated to education and training are being thwarted by the inflexible rules to protect competition with which firms must comply if they are to obtain such funding. The de minimis rule, which fixes a ceiling of 100 000 over a three-year period for every firm applying for such funds, reflects a narrow view of training as something that benefits only the undertaking involved, disregards its beneficial effects on individual employees' skills and the community at large and seems to be at odds with the objectives of the European Social Fund in terms of improving the employment market.

What measures will the Commission take to make the de minimis rule less inflexible, thereby correcting a somewhat skewed view of competition and facilitating access to training programmes?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Improving education and training is one of the policy objectives of the European Structural Funds. When funding such measures, the Commission as well as the Member States are bound by the State aid rules, which are designed to avoid distortions of competition.

As far as eduction and training are concerned, it should be pointed out, however, that many measures in these fields do not constitute State aid and can therefore be freely implemented by Member States. This is the case of general measures which directly benefit people and workers everywhere and do not grant an advantage to certain enterprises or sectors. Examples are: schooling and initial training (such as apprenticeships and day release schemes); the training or re-training of unemployed people, including traineeships in enterprises; measures directly targeted at workers, affording them the opportunity of receiving training unconnected with the firm or industry in which they work (e.g. the learning account). Other measures do not fall within the scope of the State aid rules because they are open to all enterprises in all sectors without discrimination and without discretionary power for the authorities applying the measure, e.g. general tax incentive schemes, such as automatic tax credits, open to all firms investing in employee training.

For training measures constituting State aid, the Commission has laid down the assessment criteria in a framework on training aid(1). This framework confirms the favourable approach of the Commission towards training measures and allows training aid for general training up to 90 % of the eligible costs. In order to simplify the State aid notification procedures and to facilitate the granting of training aid, the Commission has on 6 December 2000 decided to adopt an exemption regulation for training aid, which takes over the assessment criteria from the training aid framework. As a consequence, training aid measures fulfilling the conditions of this regulation, Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid(2), can in future be granted without notification and authorisation by the Commission.

Finally, training measures favouring certain enterprises do not constitute State aid if they remain below the de minimis ceiling(3). On 6 December 2000 the Commission has adopted a regulation codifying the de minimis rule. In this regulation, Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid, the Commission has, in the light of its experience, maintained the threshold of 100 000 over a three-year. The de minimis Regulation is without prejudice, however, to the possibility that enterprises receive, also for the same project, State aid authorised by the Commission or covered by a group exemption regulation.

The Commission therefore considers that its favourable attitude towards education and training is adequately reflected in the existing rules.

(1) OJ C 343, 11.11.1998.

(2) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.

(3) See Commission Communication OJ C 68, 6.3.1996.