WRITTEN QUESTION E-0381/01 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Coal mining in the Ruhr region, North Rhine-Westphalia.
Date: 2001-02-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, State aid, aid for restructuring, coal, control of State aid, energy policy, intervention policy, mining industry, mining operation, production capacity

C 261 E/100

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

Although there is scientific evidence linking variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) to BSE, there is
neither certainty concerning the transmissibility of BSE to humans, nor the transmissibility via blood or
organs of vCJD. However, the Commission is well aware of the potential problem of transmission of vCJD
by blood and blood derivatives. The relevant Scientific Committees continuously monitor the latest
scientific evidence in that area and the Commission will propose preventive measures as necessary. On
13 December 2000 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on quality and safety of blood (5).
This Directive will, once adopted by Parliament and Council, set blood safety standards across the
Community and also provide the legal basis for Community measures regarding the prevention of vCJD
transmission by blood and blood derivatives.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 132.
(2) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 129.
(3) See page 53.
(4) Written answer from 16.1.2001.
(5) COM(2000) 816 final.

(2001/C 261 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0381/01

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Coal mining in the Ruhr region, North Rhine-Westphalia

Highly subsidised coal is being mined in North Rhine-Westphalia. The Commission only granted the coal
subsidy on condition that there would be an overall decrease in production, leading to further pit closures.
However, according to the attached newspaper article, which appeared on 27 January 2001 in the
(cid:145)Rheinische Post(cid:146), Ruhrkohle AG is in fact planning to expand the Walsum pit. In addition, the outline
operational plan is to be revised.

1. What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the expansion to this pit in the light of the expressed political
objective and the conditions made with the aim of reducing the production of highly subsidised coal?

If necessary, what does the Commission intend to do in order to prevent an increase in coal

2.
production?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2001)

The Commission authorised State aid to the German coal industry for the year 2000 by Decision of
1.
21 December 2000 (1). The Decision provides in particular for further reductions of activity which must
lead to closures of production sites in addition to the closures already planned by Germany for the years
2000, 2001 and 2002. These additional closures correspond, in the context of aid for 2000, to a reduction
in operating aid under Article 3 of Decision 3632/93/ECSC of DM 1 200 million and to an increase in aid
for the reduction of activity of the same amount (2).

The reduction in new production capacity was a crucial element in the decision taken by the Commission.
The principle of reducing the coal industry(cid:146)s costs and production capacity is necessary in order to achieve
degression of aids. Nonetheless, it is not within the Commission(cid:146)s powers to involve itself in decisions
taken by the company which owns the mine regarding the operation of any particular pit. The
Commission(cid:146)s power of authorisation with regard to State aid to the coal industry must be exercised
strictly within the framework of the provisions of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, and more particularly in
the light of the general objectives referred to in Article 2 and the specific criteria laid down for the various
types of aid in Article 3 et seq.

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/101

It should also be pointed out that the Decision to authorise aid for the year 2000 specifies that Germany
undertakes to adopt any general or specific measures necessary to comply with the obligations under the
said Decision. Should it emerge that certain measures taken by Ruhrkohle AG were producing a situation
other than that required under the terms of the Decision authorising the aid for the year 2000, Germany
would be required to ask for the amounts granted but not used in accordance with the Decision to be
repaid.

2.
On expiry of the ECSC Treaty and Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 23 July 2002, most of the
Community coal industry would be likely to disappear in the very short term if no financial support was
given. If we want to guarantee the long-term availability of some Community coal mining capacity to
cover any unforeseen events which might affect the energy market, there can be no future for Community
coal unless there is a mechanism for intervention by the public authorities. This basic principle has been
included in the Green Paper on the security of energy supply adopted by the Commission on 29 Novem-
ber 2000 (3). An aid scheme would therefore make it possible to guarantee access to reserves by
maintaining a minimum amount of subsidised coal.

The Commission nevertheless believes that such a scheme must not under any circumstances deflect the
Member States from the need to rationalise the coal industry. The measures for restructuring and reduction
of activity started in the framework of the ECSC Treaty must be continued. Any future Community rules
for aid to the coal industry must therefore incorporate the principle of the degression of State aid.

(1) Decision not yet published.
(2) Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December 1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the

coal industry, OJ L 329, 30.12.1993.

(3) COM(2000) 769 final.

(2001/C 261 E/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0382/01

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Proposed directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment

Why is the European Commission proceeding with a proposed Directive on waste electrical and electronic
equipment, which would require electrical retailers to offer consumers a free service to take back old
electrical products, when the proposed Directive would:

1.

force small and medium-sized businesses to use expensive floor space to store waste electrical
products,

2.

cause practical difficulties for customers transporting these products to retail outlets,

3.

4.

5.

cause health and safety problems for retail staff, who would be expected to handle all kinds of
dangerous, soiled, greasy or possibly contaminated equipment returned by the consumer,

cause huge additional expense to small and medium-sized businesses having to collect old products
whilst delivering new ones,

require small and medium-sized retailers to apply for a waste-management licence which could only
be obtained by sending staff on expensive courses,