WRITTEN QUESTION E-0616/00 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Suspension of investment incentives in the Lisbon and Tagus valley region.
Date: 2000-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, control of State aid, derogation from EU law, economic consequence, investment aid, regional development, suspension of aid

C 330 E/192

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

or suspicion that it can affect humans. In these farms all animals have been slaughtered and destroyed.
However,
in other farms the presence of infectious agents has not been confirmed and other causes
(deficiency in cobalt and vitamin B12) are probably involved.

Except for a single reported field case in Italy that was suspected to relate to an IBR vaccine, the
Commission is not aware of other possibly similar situations having occurred in the Community.

With regard to the recent Community action related to IBR vaccines, the Commission would like to draw
the attention of the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to the written question E-0634/00 by
Mrs Muscardini (1).

(1) See page 194.

(2000/C 330 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0616/00

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Suspension of investment incentives in the Lisbon and Tagus valley region

According to information which I have received, the Commission has decided to suspend investment
incentives to businesses in the Lisbon and Tagus valley region until a final decision is taken on the matter,
which might be as late as June 2001.

This will mean that such businesses will no longer have access to the PEDIP (specific programme for
development of Portuguese industry), Procom (trade) or SIFIT (tourism) programmes.

In view of the economic difficulties which this suspension will cause to the region and neighbouring areas,
will the Commission explain why it has taken such a decision and how and when it intends to unblock the
situation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

After the guidelines on national regional aid were adopted (1), the Commission asked the Portuguese
authorities to send it a notification under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 93(3)) supplying
a draft map showing, first, the Portuguese regions which it was proposed should qualify for national
regional aid under the exemptions in Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty (formerly Article 92), and,
second, the intensity ceilings for aid for initial investment and aid for job creation linked to investment
envisaged in each of the regions shown, and the ceilings applicable where aid under different schemes is
combined.

The Portuguese authorities
the period 2000-06, and on
8 December 1999 the Commission approved the sections of the map defining the regions in Portugal
qualifying for the exemption provided for in Article 87(3)(a), namely North, Centre, Alentejo, Algarve,
Azores and Madeira.

regional aid map for

supplied a draft

But in respect of the only Portuguese region which was to qualify under the exemption in Article 87(3)(c),
namely Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, the Commission initiated the procedure of Article 88(2): it took the view
that on the basis of the information available the proposal made by the Portuguese authorities could not
be considered compatible with the guidelines. According to the Portuguese notification the whole of this
region, which accounts for 33,4 % of the population of the country, was to be covered by the transitional
period referred to in point 5.7 of the guidelines, during which the aid intensities which had applied there
until the end of 1999 under Article 87(3)(a) would be adapted. But, given the limitations on the
geographical scope of point 5.7 of the guidelines, which are imposed by footnote 43, only a section of
the region (10,2 % of the population of the country) would qualify for such a transitional period.

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/193

As the Honourable Member observes, Article 88(3) has the effect of suspending assistance until the above
procedure has resulted in a final decision. The Commission will make known its position as soon as
possible in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.

(2000/C 330 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0620/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Teaching of Greek-language interpreting

(3 March 2000)

The Germersheim campus of the University of Mainz (Germany) has a teaching programme which includes
a very useful training course for interpreters from and into various European languages. Despite the fact
that there are several dozen students studying interpreting from and into Greek, I am informed that the
university plans to discontinue the teaching of interpreting from and into this language. At the same time,
I am told that the university receives funding from the European Union precisely to support the teaching
of interpreting.

In the light of this information, could the Commission say what plans the University of Mainz has with
regard to the teaching of interpreting from and into Greek?

Since there does not seem to be any good reason for its abolition, could the Commission request the
University of Mainz or its supervisory authority to maintain the teaching of this language, which is
particularly useful for the operation of Community bodies and many other European organisations and
undertakings?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Commission agrees with the Honorable Member(cid:146)s comments on the importance of Greek as an official
Community language. In the field of interpreting, the Joint Interpreting and Conference Service is making
the utmost effort to guarantee multilingualism and the equal dignity of all the languages. Nevertheless, the
Commission cannot take the place of national authorities when it comes to the training of interpreters.

In fact, in keeping with the EC Treaty, each Member State is responsible for the content of the education it
provides and for the way in which its education system is organised. The decision to discontinue the
teaching of interpreting in Greek is therefore the responsibility of the university authorities and ultimately
of the Member State concerned.

Finally, it would appear in the present case that the information received by the Honorable Member does
not entirely reflect the situation as it stands. The University of Mainz has in fact confirmed that Greek is
not and never has been one of the languages in the syllabus for the training of interpreters. Moreover, the
Commission does not contribute financially to the interpreter training programme at this university.

(2000/C 330 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0621/00

by William Newton Dunn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Hallmarking

Further to Answer H-0729/99 (1) to my previous question about the hallmarking of silver, will the
Commission use its best endeavours to facilitate an in-depth discussion to take place in the Council(cid:146)s