WRITTEN QUESTION E-2644/00 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Council. Trade.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Japan, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, originating product, recording equipment

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/141

(2001/C 113 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2641/00

by Jaime Valdivielso de CuØ (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Shipbuilding

On 12 July the competition services at the Commission announced their suspicion that the purchase of the
Juliana shipyard and the Manises diesel engine plant by the SEPI represented state aid.

Given that the above transaction complies with the European Union(cid:146)s accounting and tax rules, what is the
basis for these suspicions?

Bearing in mind that this is a normal operation among companies, the value of which has not been
distorted, how can it be defined as state aid?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 2000)

It should firstly be clarified that on 12 July 2000 the Commission, not the services of Directorate general
Competition, decided to initiate an investigation procedure under Article 88,2 (ex Article 93) of the
EC Treaty into SEPI(cid:146)s acquisition of Juliana and Manises (as well as the shipyard at Cadiz). The Honourable
Member will be aware that the Commission opens an investigation procedure when it has doubts about
the compatibility of a measure with the common market. Such a decision does not in any way prejudge
the Commission(cid:146)s final decision.

The Commission decided to open the procedure in this case, because on the basis of the information at its
disposal it had doubts whether the transaction could be regarded as a commercial transaction, particularly
given that SEPI was already the ultimate shareholder of the acquired entities and in view of the financial
difficulties of the yards. The Commission had doubts whether SEPI(cid:146)s behaviour could be regarded as
comparable to that of a private investor in similar circumstances. It considered that the measure could be a
capital injection that could constitute state aids within the meaning of Article 87.1 (ex Article 92) of the
EC Treaty.

At the same time as opening the investigation procedure, the Commission issued an injunction enjoining
Spain to provide all relevant information within one month.

(2001/C 113 E/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2644/00

by Jaime Valdivielso de CuØ (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Trade

In May 2000 a proposal was submitted to the Council regarding the setting of definitive anti-dumping
duties for certain components of TV camera equipment from Japan. After an investigation lasting more
than two years, carried out by the Commission with the cooperation of European manufacturers of these
products, the Commission proposed that anti-dumping measures be taken.

That proposal was rejected at the meeting of the Council(cid:146)s trade group of 8 May 2000.

Can the Council say on what grounds that decision was based?

C 113 E/142

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

Reply

(16 November 2000)

The Council refers the Honourable Member to the answer on his question number E-2295/00.

(2001/C 113 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2645/00

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Committee of Experts on reform of the Commission

Is the Commission in a position to assess the overall cost of the task carried out by the Committee of
Independent Experts on reform of the Commission, possibly by requesting some data from Parliament(cid:146)s
Administration?

In accordance with the objective of transparency recommended by the experts, can the Commission list
the allowances, travel and subsistence expenses and other emoluments received individually by the five
experts?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

It was Parliament which determined the financial and practical
Committee of Independent Experts set up following Parliament(cid:146)s resolution of 14 January 1999.

implications of the activities of the

In accordance with Parliament(cid:146)s wishes, the Commission agreed,
Committee(cid:146)s expenses, with Parliament handling the operational management of the contracts involved.

to defray half of the

in principle,

On the basis of statements of expenditure from Parliament, the Commission made an initial payment of
€ 75 256.62 to cover the phase of the Committee(cid:146)s activities ending in March 1999. The costs to be borne
by the Commission for the second phase come to € 101 377.43: the funding procedure is about to be
wrapped up.

It should be borne in mind that Parliament directly covered all the Committee(cid:146)s operating costs and
provided various contributions in kind (offices, office supplies, telecommunication and computer infra-
structure, and secretarial services). The Commission would therefore suggest that the Honourable Member
ask Parliament to provide comprehensive information on all the costs arising from the activities of the
Committee of Independent Experts.

(2001/C 113 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2648/00

by W. G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: International roaming charges for mobile telephones

(1 August 2000)

In June 2000 in a resolution (A5-0258/00) the European Parliament expressed its concern at international
roaming charges for mobile telephone users. The Commission had previously announced an investigation
into this matter.

1. What stage has been reached in the Commission investigation into high roaming charges?

Can the Commission confirm that in the case of certain operators the top 5 % of international

2.
roaming clients account for 70 % of profits in this area?