WRITTEN QUESTION E-1036/01 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) and Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission. Payments arising from the Enschede firework disaster.
Date: 2001-04-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, aid to disaster victims, explosive, fire, man-made disaster

C 318 E/190

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

The Commission:

1. Why did it reject the waiver request, without, moreover, stating its reasons?

2. Given that

the poorer harvests were due entirely to a natural cause, does it not believe that
enforcement of Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, in this particular case, was an excessively
harsh step to take?

3. Could it reconsider its attitude so as to avert the huge damage that the Noto cereal growers will

otherwise suffer?

(1) OJ L 391, 31.12.1992, p. 36.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2001)

1.
The Honourable Member is right in saying that the Commission rejected the Italian Ministry of
Agriculture(cid:146)s request for a waiver. The Commission did, however, state its reasons, referring to non-
compliance with the rules laying down minimum conditions for area payments, i.e. that the crop must be
maintained until at least the beginning of flowering.

2.
Under Article 11(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying
down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community
aid schemes, cases of force majeure must be notified to the competent authority in writing, with relevant
evidence to the satisfaction of the authority, within ten working days of the date on which the farmer is in
a position to do so. In the absence of such notification, the competent authorities have no option but to
apply Article 9 of the above-mentioned Regulation for calculating the amount of aid.

3.

For the reasons given above, the Commission cannot reconsider its position.

(2001/C 318 E/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1036/01

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) and Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Payments arising from the Enschede firework disaster

(3 April 2001)

Serious problems have arisen in obtaining payments due on account of the Enschede firework disaster,
particularly those due to the entrepreneurs affected by it. These are people whose businesses have been
destroyed and who will not be able to start new businesses for some time, for example tradespeople,
because their whole district no longer exists.

A scheme has been introduced to enable businesses to survive ((cid:145)no one should be bankrupted by the
disaster(cid:146)) by paying compensation for four types of damage:

(cid:129) material damage

(cid:129) loss of earnings

(cid:129) erosion of assets following the cessation of business activity

(cid:129) guidance costs.

The maximum total compensation payable per business is € 100 000 for a maximum period of three years.

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/191

Is it true that the payment of any larger sum by way of support to enterprises would require the approval
of the Commission pursuant to Article 87(2)(b) of the EC Treaty?

Is it true that a decision to grant such approval could take between a year and 18 months to reach, which
in the case of a disaster like this one would undoubtedly be too late to prevent the entrepreneurs
concerned from going bankrupt?

What will the Commission do to speed up decision-making in the aftermath of such disasters and
particularly in the case of the Enschede disaster?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

Article 87(2)(b) (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty provides that aid to make good the damage caused by
natural disasters or exceptional occurrences shall be compatible with the common market. A State aid
scheme providing (partial) compensation to companies for the damage caused by the fireworks disaster
qualifies under this exemption.

Such aid measures are subject to the normal notification requirements in accordance with Article 88(3)
(ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty. In practice, this implies that notification is required if the aid exceeds the
criteria laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of
Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (1), and notably the ceiling of € 100 000 per
company over a period of three years.

In the vast majority of cases, the Commission takes a positive decision within two months following the
receipt of a complete notification of an aid scheme (a (cid:145)decision not to raise objections(cid:146)). The deadline of
maximum two months is established in article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March
1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2).

In the case of a scheme to compensate the damage caused by the fireworks disaster, the Commission will
examine only whether there is no irregular use of the exemption. An examination of this nature is
concluded within two months following the receipt of a complete notification if the scheme excludes any
possibility of abuse.

(1) OJ L 10, 13.1.2000.
(2) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

(2001/C 318 E/209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1038/01

by Isidoro SÆnchez Garc(cid:237)a (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Development cooperation policy for Latin America (the environment)

What guidelines will be followed by the Commission in its development cooperation policy for the
countries of Latin America, particularly with reference to the environment?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2001)

The Commission takes great care to ensure that its development cooperation policy with Latin America is
in line with the major international conventions on the environment such as those on climate change,
biodiversity or desertification, and with international processes on the conservation and sustainable
management of forests such as the United Nations Forum on Forests. A new Regulation was adopted in