WRITTEN QUESTION E-0908/01 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission. Failure to notify the Commission of State aids to Spanish electricity companies.
Date: 2001-03-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, State aid, redemption

C 364 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0908/01

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Failure to notify the Commission of State aids to Spanish electricity companies

The new wording of the Sixth Transitional Provision of the Spanish Electricity Industry Act has abolished
the provisions previously applied regarding securitisation and the 4,5 % allocation based on the standard
rate, a system which to date has raised some ESP 500 billion in what has to be considered State aid, as the
Spanish Government itself acknowledged when it proposed to change the rules. In spite of that fact,
Spanish legislation does not specify what is to be done with the amounts collected under these rules,
is
which have been amended in accordance with the Commission(cid:146)s suggestions. The end result
a paradoxical situation in which the electricity companies have received sums which,
in principle,
constitute unnotified aids.

Does the Commission believe that it should any steps to prevent electricity companies from benefiting
from what essentially amounts to unnotified State aids?

Answer given by M. Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the
application of Article 93 (former Article 99) of the EC Treaty (1), and in accordance with Court of Justice
case-law, the fact that aid is unlawful, i.e. that it is granted before the Commission has taken a decision on
whether it is compatible with the common market, is not in itself a sufficient condition for requiring
reimbursement. In each case, the Commission must also demonstrate that the aid is incompatible with the
common market. The question raised by the Honourable Member will therefore be dealt with in the
Commission(cid:146)s final decision on the case in point.

(1) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

(2001/C 364 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0918/01

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) and John Corrie (PPE-DE) to the Council

Subject: Habitat+5 and the family

(29 March 2001)

In the light of 12 paragraphs referring to the family in the 1996 Habitat Platform for Action, in particular
paragraph 31, which states that: (cid:145)Human settlement planning should take into account the constructive role
of the family in the design, development and management of such settlement. Society should facilitate as
appropriate all necessary conditions for its integration, reunification, preservation,
improvement, and
protection within adequate shelter and with access to basic secure and sustainable livelihood.(cid:146) In the light
of the European Parliament(cid:146)s Hermange report on family protection, and in the light of the constitutionnal
protection of the family in the Irish Constitution and in most other EU constitutions, how will the Council
promote the recognition and inclusion of the importance of the family in the upcoming Ungass (1) on
Habitat+5? What terminology will be proposed to achieve family promotion, which is at the heart of every
human settlement?

(1) Extraordinary meeting of the General Assembly of the UN.

Reply

(27 September 2001)

From 6 to 8 June 2001, five years after (cid:145)Habitat II(cid:146) (Istanbul 1996), the General Assembly of the United
the Habitat Agenda
Nations will hold a special session to review and appraise implementation of