WRITTEN QUESTION E-0866/01 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission. State aid Ireland - Public broadcasting.
Date: 2001-03-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, State aid, application of EU law, audiovisual industry, competition law, control of State aid, mass media, public sector, public service, quasi-fiscal charge

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/109

(2001/C 340 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0863/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Slaughterhouse inspections

Will the Commission indicate with respect to each Member State the charge to slaughterhouses for
inspections carried out under the Fresh Meat Directive, noting, for example, whether the charge is a flat
rate for the inspector(cid:146)s time or a charge per animal slaughtered?

Is the Commission considering infringement proceedings against any EU country for failing to levy
charges?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

The Commission does not currently have an overview of the charges to slaughterhouses in each Member
State for inspections carried out under Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems
affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat (1). The Commission(cid:146)s Food and Veterinary Office is
conducting a survey on the subject of the financing of veterinary controls within the Community. This
survey has, however, not yet been completed.

Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985, on the financing of health inspections and controls of
fresh meat and poultry meat (2), as last amended by Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 (3), lays
down rules for these charges.

The Commission has initiated infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty
against all Member States which have not adopted the national measures necessary to ensure transposition
of the Directive in question.

At the moment, infringement proceedings are still pending in respect of transposition delays in Germany,
Greece and Ireland.

(1) OJ B 121, 29.7.1964.
(2) OJ L 32, 5.2.1985.
(3) OJ L 162, 1.7.1996.

(2001/C 340 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0866/01

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: State aid Ireland (cid:129) Public broadcasting

On 13 April 2000, I raised a question regarding a State aid complaint made against the Irish Government
in March 1999 in respect of the payment of a television licence fee to RTE, the public service broadcaster.
In a letter of reply dated 19 September 2000, the Commissioner responsible indicated that its services
(cid:145)have performed a preliminary assessment of it, concluding that it is, prima facie, grounded and deserves
further in-depth analysis(cid:146). What progress, if any, has been made in respect of this important complaint?
Does the Commission believe it is satisfactory for two years to have elapsed since the complaint was
lodged and no decision to have emerged from the Commission?

Secondly, RTE, the public service broadcaster, has made an application for an increase of 71 % in the
current licence fee. The Minister responsible for broadcasting has indicated that a recommendation on this
application will be brought before the Irish Government (cid:145)soon(cid:146). Is the Commission aware that such an
increase has been applied for? Without pre-judging whether or not the Commission believes the licence fee
or any proposed increase thereto constitutes respectively a justifiable State aid or justifiable altered State
aid, respectively, does it believe it appropriate that any proposal to increase the fee should be notified to

C 340 E/110

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

the Commission, as required under the Treaty(cid:146)s State aid rules? Does the Commission believe that any
decision by the Irish Government to approve such an increase should be postponed until such time as the
Commission has had the opportunity to examine the proposal and taken a decision to authorise
a proportionate increase, if that were found to be consistent with Treaty rules?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

As pointed out by the Honourable Member, the Member of the Commission responsible for Competition
indicated in 2000 that the Commission concluded that the complaint lodged against the payment of
a television licence fee to RTE deserved further in-depth analysis.

Public service broadcasting is a very complex area where the Commission has to reach a balanced solution
that will guarantee both the Member State(cid:146)s right to provide public service broadcasting and the right of
private operators to fair competition. In order to ensure certainty for all operators the Commission is
actively working on a draft of a Commission Communication, which will hopefully be presented soon. The
Communication will set out the principles the Commission will adhere to in applying Articles 87, 88 and
Article 86 (ex Articles 92, 93 and 90), paragraph 2 of the EC Treaty to state funding of public service
broadcasting. This will clarify the Commission(cid:146)s policy in this highly complex area, allowing an assessment
of the cases in full transparency.

With a view to assuring an even handed approach, priority has been given to preparing this
Communication and deepen the case analysis in a comparative perspective. The analysis of complaints in
this field, including the complaint about the licence fee to RTE, will be finalised after the adoption of the
Communication.

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for the information on the application of RTE for an
increase of 71 % in the current licence fee. The Commission is closely following these developments. With
regard to the questions on the obligation to notify the Commission of an increase in the licence fee, the
Commission would like to refer to Article 88(3) EC where the obligations are laid down for Member States
to notify the Commission of new aid or alterations to existing aid. In this respect the Commission would
also like to draw attention to the Judgement of the Court of Justice in the Namur-Ducroire case (1). In this
case the Court ruled that (cid:145)Article 93(3) [now article 88(3)] of the Treaty is to be interpreted as meaning that
enlargement, in circumstances such as those described in the referred judgement, of the field of activity of
a public establishment which is in receipt of aid granted by the State under legislation predating the entry
into force of the Treaty cannot, where it does not affect the system of aid established by that legislation, be
regarded as constituting the granting or alteration of aid which is subject to the obligation of prior
notification and the prohibition on putting aid into effect laid down by that provision(cid:146).

(1)

Judgement of the Court of Justice of 9 August 1994 in case C-44/93 (Namur-Ducroire) (cid:129) Jurisprudence 1994,
p. I-3829.

(2001/C 340 E/127)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0869/01

by Jorge HernÆndez Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Subject: Potato import quota

The agreement between the EU and the Kingdom of Morocco sets at 120 000 tonnes the quota of potatoes
exported to the EU that is subject to zero duty (i.e. tariff exemption).

Intrastat data cannot be accessed in real time, and thus it is impossible to tell whether the quota has been
exceeded and the corresponding duty therefore applied.