WRITTEN QUESTION E-0492/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) and Fernando Pérez Royo (PSE) to the Commission. Statements made by Commissioner Monti in Spain concerning state aid granted by the Spanish Government.
Date: 2000-02-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, State aid, access to information, control of State aid, electrical industry, interinstitutional relations (EU), operation of the Institutions

C 330 E/174

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

Traineeships can be announced by the potential promoter or partners before the programme has
2.
been accepted, provided it is made clear that they are subject to acceptance of the programme by the
Commission.

3.
Under the first phase of Leonardo da Vinci, the programmes mentioned in paragraph 1 generally
began on 1 December. They usually run for two years and placements have an average duration of six
months.

4.
The promoter, beneficiary and the sending and host organisations enter into a binding agreement on
participation in a placement or exchange programme. It is not the Commission(cid:146)s responsibility to provide
compensation.

The Commission can only offer financial support to participants in a placement or exchange

5.
programme.

(2000/C 330 E/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0492/00

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) and Fernando PØrez Royo (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Statements made by Commissioner Monti in Spain concerning state aid granted by the Spanish

Government

One of the undertakings given by the Prodi Commission was that the European Parliament would be
notified of agreements and decisions before the press was informed. During Mr Monti(cid:146)s appearance before
the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, we asked for information concerning the issue of the
CTCs (costs of transition to competition) of the Spanish electricity companies. As time was short, the
Commissioner stated that he would reply to the question in writing. To date, no response has been
received.

On 4 February Commissioner Monti travelled to Madrid where he met with members of the Spanish
Government. Afterwards, he held a press conference, during the course of which he gave certain
information on this issue, before the European Parliament was informed. Some of the information given
(cid:129) possibly distorted by the Spanish Government (cid:129) implied a certain degree of agreement between the
report of the independent expert and the position of the Spanish Government. This information is at odds
with the views expressed by officials in the Commission(cid:146)s Directorate-General for Competition, according
to whom the conclusions of the independent report differ from the estimates of the Spanish Government
(cid:145)on four points(cid:146), which would imply a (cid:145)substantial reduction in the figure(cid:146). In addition, the Commissioner
himself (cid:129) according to press reports at least (cid:129) intends to investigate the issue, which hardly squares with
the triumphalist interpretation of the Spanish Government.

On what points does the independent expert(cid:146)s report differ from the estimates of the Spanish Government?
On what points does the report differ from the estimates of the Spanish Electricity Commission? Will a
copy of the report be provided to the European Parliament? On what factors is the Spanish Government
basing its assumption that the Commission will find in its favour? Does Commissioner Monti consider that
he has fulfilled the undertaking to inform Parliament before the press?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

The consultant(cid:146)s mandate was to check that the assumptions taken as a basis by the Spanish authorities to
calculate the (cid:145)costs of transition to competition(cid:146) (CTCs) complied with internationally recognised standards;
it was not to calculate all admissible CTCs anew. Thus, a comparison cannot be made between the
consultant(cid:146)s report and the report drawn up by the Comisi(cid:243)n Nacional del Sistema ElØctrico. As was stated
in the answer to Written Question E-348/00 by Ms Diez Gonzalez (1), the Commission is studying the
results of the assessments and has requested the Spanish authorities to provide additional information. As
regards the questions which were put
the Commission with responsibility for
to the Member of
competition at the meeting of the Economic and Monetary Committee held on 11 January 2000 and to
which he could not reply for want of time, the Commission would point out that, as agreed at that
meeting,
the Economic and Monetary Committee on
24 February 2000.

it sent a written answer

to the chair of

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/175

Given that the consultant(cid:146)s report is confidential, the Commission does not plan to send a copy to
Parliament. The Commission would emphasise that it is not in the least responsible for any views
expressed in the report. The Commission is continuing to examine the matter and has not yet taken a
decision. Parliament will be duly informed.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 179.

(2000/C 330 E/199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0497/00

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Revision of the EWC Directive

The German parent company of Fujitsu Siemens Computers has closed its company in Finland for reasons
which are clearly not economic, in order to preserve jobs in Germany. In this connection the company
was clearly in breach of its consultation and information obligations under the EWC directive, and of its
obligation
responsible
(COM(1998) 612 fin. (1). Is it within the Commission(cid:146)s power to monitor compliance with this directive
and does it have plans to amend the directive to make it more binding?

decision-makers

the managers

decision with

discuss

and

its

to

(1) OJ C 2, 5.1.1999, p. 3.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

The Commission does not have any information at its disposal which enables it to conclude that the
employee information and consultation obligations under Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September
1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings
and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (1)
have not been respected in the case referred to by the Honourable Member. In any event, as this Directive
has been properly incorporated into German law,
it is first and foremost the task of the national
authorities to assess any infringements of the rules in force which may be brought to their attention by
those who feel they have been wronged.

The Commission is currently looking at how this Directive has been implemented. Within the next few
weeks it will adopt a report to the European Parliament and Council on this subject.

The Commission has on several occasions emphasised the need for the proposal for a Council Directive
establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees to be adopted by Parliament and
the Council without delay. Clearly, the provisions contained in the proposal are not yet in force.

(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.

(2000/C 330 E/200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0500/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Member State violations of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and the

consolidated Treaty establishing the European Community

Is the Council aware that, as of this moment, more than one hundred and eighty Members of the European
Parliament have signed the following motion for a resolution:

Mindful of the provisions of Article 3 of Protocol No 4 to the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) as amended by Protocol No 11 (cid:145)requiring that