WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3504/98 by John IVERSEN to the Commission. Unlawful state aid to pig farmers
Date: 1998-11-25
Institutions: European Parliament, IVERSEN
Subjects: State aid, financial aid, intra-EU trade, livestock farming, production aid, restriction on competition, single market, swine

C 207/80

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.7.1999

(1999/C 207/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3504/98

by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Unlawful state aid to pig farmers

Under EU rules on state aid, all aid granted in respect of products is unlawful. The Commission should
therefore intervene to stop the financial aid recently given by the French Government to pig farmers in France.

Pig farmers have been given FF 150 million on top of the FF 100 million they were allocated by the French
Government in September. They have also been allowed to use credit facilities provided by the Stabiporc fund,
which has been allocated FF 420 million. French pig farmers have thus received financial aid totalling
FF 670 million.

The Commission should therefore intervene immediately and declare the aid unlawful. To start with, Stabiporc
was declared unlawful by the European Court of Justice in the early 1990s. Secondly, the French Government
has still not been able to explain how the FF 100 million allocated to pig farmers in September is lawful.

Will the Commission ensure that French pig farmers lose their unlawful competitive advantages?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

The Commission decided on 9 December 1998 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 93(2) of the EC
Treaty in respect of aid which the French authorities are planning to grant to pig producers. The aid scheme
has three components.

The French authorities intend to reactivate the Stabiporc system of repayable advances. Provided the advances
(loans) are granted at market rates and comply with the Commission’s reference rates, the measures do not
appear to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty.

The other two measures involve the deferral of social security contributions and the taking over of recent
investors’ loans. Since the sector concerned is the subject of trade and strong competition within the
Community, these measures may affect trade between Member States and risk distorting competition by
favouring French producers. They do not appear, at this stage, to meet the Commission’s criteria for qualifying
for the exemptions provided for in Article 92(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty. They seem, therefore, at present to be
operating aid which is not compatible with the common market.

If the doubts about the aid’s compatibility with the common market should turn out to be well founded, the
Commission may have to take a final negative decision in order to restore the competitive status quo.

(1999/C 207/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3509/98

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Council

(25 November 1998)

Subject: Food, veterinary and plant health control and inspection

With reference to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the
Economic and Social Committee on food, veterinary and plant health control and inspection (COM(98) 32
final) and to the negotiations within the WTO with a view to maintaining equilibrium in international free
trade, taking into account inter alia health and safety aspects, can the Council endeavour as actively as possible
to support the European Union’s control policy and to gain acceptance of it by the international community so
that the problems caused by the liberalisation of trade in the food, veterinary and plant health sector can be
dealt with?