WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1009/98 by Ernesto CACCAVALE to the Commission. Apparent illegality of the prohibition on benefiting from state aid in conjunction with Community funding
Date: 1998-04-06
Institutions: CACCAVALE, European Parliament
Subjects: Campania, EU financing, European Regional Development Fund, State aid, co-financing, control of State aid, operational programme, principle of additionality

C 402/58

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.12.98

(98/C 402/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1009/98

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Apparent illegality of the prohibition on benefiting from state aid in conjunction with Community

funding

As the Campania Region(cid:146)s MOP has been approved by the Commission and the Commission has always
preferred -and in fact required › the funds it grants to be accompanied by corresponding financial aid provided
directly by the Member State or by regional or local authorities etc (i.e co-financing), and measure 2.2 of the
Campania MOP concerns the creation of infrastructures, the question arises whether the prohibition imposed on
the Campania Region is lawful and consistent with Commission guidelines.

This prohibition means that, if infrastructures are created by consortia (local development bodies comprising
public and private organizations and local authorities), they are entitled to receive Community funding alone and,
if they are eligible for aid from the Member State for the creation of the infrastructures in question, they must
forgo it. This seems absurd, and in fact some organizations intend to appeal to the European Court of Justice.

This being so, does the Commission agree that it should take action to clarify the matter with a view to ultimately
reversing this ban, which effectively precludes national co-financing and is inconsistent both with Community
rules and the Campania Region(cid:146)s support framework?

Moreover, the office responsible for administering measure 2.2 has shown and stated that the ban results from the
rules laid down by the Commission concerning the application of the net/gross grant equivalent system. As the
infrastructures in question are in the public interest, however, does the Commission agree that it should state its
position on the application of the net/gross grant equivalent system, as the relevant criteria should apply solely to
measure 2.1 (a measure to assist SMUs) and not to measure 2.2, which concerns the public, rather than the private,
sector?

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Measure 2.2 of the Campania regional operational programme provides for European regional development fund
assistance to public investment in industrial zones. The aid rate is 50 %. Such publicly funded infrastructures are
made available for sale or rent to firms at market rates in order to avoid distortion of competition.

In Campania construction of industrial zones is also apparently undertaken by consortiums of local firms using
private finance to fund the investment. These consortiums have applied for assistance under measure 2.2 and the
region proposes an amendment of the measure to include also privately financed industrial zones.

These would be eligible for structural fund aid at the 50 % aid rate foreseen for public investments. However, the
region does not intend also to refinance the private contribution of 50 % with an additional public contribution,
this making it possible for the consortiums(cid:146) investments to be 100 % publicly financed. The Commission has no
objection to this approach.

(98/C 402/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1015/98

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Human rights violations in Sudan

Can the Commission indicate what is being done with regard to the human rights violations in Sudan, the issue of
slavery and the problems of accessibility for humanitarian aid and Human Rights Monitors? Can the Commission