WRITTEN QUESTION E-1367/01 by Bernhard Rapkay (PSE) to the Commission. Funding for broadcasting from fees after the Preussen Elektra judgment.
Date: 2001-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, State aid, control of State aid, interpretation of the law, mass media, public financing, public institution, quasi-fiscal charge

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/37

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2001)

Article 12 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996, on the control of major-accident hazards
involving dangerous substances (1) (hereafter Seveso II Directive) requires Member States to ensure that the
objectives of preventing major accidents and limiting the consequences of such accidents are taken into
account in their land use policies and/or other relevant policies. Furthermore, they shall ensure that these
policies and the procedures for implementing them take account of the need, in the long term, to maintain
appropriate distances between establishments covered by the Directive and residential areas, areas of public
use and areas of particular natural sensitivity or interest, and, in the case of existing establishments, of the
need for additional technical measures so as not to increase the risks to people.

Article 12 does not prescribe (cid:145)distances of concern(cid:146) around hazardous establishments and should therefore
not be interpreted in that way that all Member States should use the same consultation or separation
distances for the establishments mentioned in the question. Moreover, the Directive does not require
harmonised methods for the evaluation of risk.

The requirements for land use planning are newly introduced into the Seveso II Directive; its predecessor,
Council Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on the major-accident hazards of certain industrial
activities (2) (now called Seveso I Directive) did not contain such requirements. However, several Member
States already have existing established practices for achieving a degree of separation between hazardous
establishments and residential population. In general, the methods used are disparate, ranging from explicit
consideration of the risks of major-accidents in some cases to a generic (cid:145)zoning(cid:146) approach based on
distances derived historically, normally by taking account of various environmental factors such as noise,
pollution, etc. which give separation distances which are sometimes perceived to implicitly also take
account of accident hazards.

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.
(2) OJ L 230, 5.8.1982.

(2002/C 40 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1367/01

by Bernhard Rapkay (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Funding for broadcasting from fees after the Preussen Elektra judgment

In the past the Commission has treated the funding of public service broadcasting by fees Phoenix/
the EC Treaty. Viewers pay
Kinderkanal, News 24) as aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of
broadcasting organisations fees based on legal guidelines. In this respect the Commission interprets the
criterion of (cid:145)by a Member State or through State resources(cid:146) to the effect that a charge to the State budget is
not absolutely required. However, the required charge to the State was established by the fact that viewers
were obliged to pay the fees on the basis of legal guidelines.

However, in the Preussen Elektra v. Schleswag judgment (Case C-379/98) the Court of Justice ruled on
13 March 2001 that not all advantages granted by a State, whether financed through State resources or
not, constituted aid; the distinction between aid granted by a Member State and aid granted through State
resources was intended merely to bring within the definition both advantages which were granted directly
by the State and those granted by a public or private body designated or established by the State
(paragraph 58 of the judgment). Furthermore, the fact that the purchase obligation in question was
imposed by statute and conferred an undeniable advantage on certain undertakings did not confer upon it
the character of State aid (para. 61).

C 40 E/38

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

The Court then turned to Article 10(2) of the EC Treaty, which requires Member States to abstain from any
measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty. This also could not be used
to extend the scope of the definition of aid to conduct by States that did not fall within it (para. 65).

1.

In view of the above, how does the Commission intend to treat broadcasting fees in future?

2.
Does it consider that the situation is altered by the fact that broadcasting organisations use a system
set up by them for that purpose to deal with purely technical matters (receipt and transfer of fees) which
itself is neither owed the revenue from the fees, nor monitors or administers them?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2001)

In its decision on Preussen Elektra the Court ruled that only advantages that are financed directly or
indirectly through state resources fall under the meaning of state aid of article 87(1) EC. Decisions of the
state for example imposing private companies to buy renewable energy for prices higher than its economic
value do not constitute a transfer of state resources to the private producer of renewable electricity.

The financing of public broadcasters directly from the state budget falls clearly within the definition of
state resources. The Commission has so far considered (cid:129) without challenge (cid:129) that also funding of public
broadcasters through licence fees constitute State Aids. However, the Commission is currently examining if
the judgement of the Court of Justice in the case of Preussen Elektra Judgement implies any change in its
previous assessment of this issue. The Commission will keep you informed of the conclusions of this
analysis.

(2002/C 40 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1371/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: European shipbuilding industry

(7 May 2001)

Following the official complaint concerning the unfair competition being practised by the Korean
shipbuilding industry, submitted to the Commission on 24 October 2000 by the Committee of EU
Shipbuilders(cid:146) Associations (CESA), the Commission decided to initiate an examination procedure, notice of
which was published in the Official Journal on 2 December 2000. The procedure will last at least five
months. Addressing Parliament on 12 March 2001, the Member of the Commission responsible for
competition, Mario Monti, indicated that the Commission was still attempting to achieve an amicable
negotiated settlement to the dispute, despite the fact that it intended to raise the South Korean case in the
World Trade Organisation (WTO). Regarding the aid system to be employed while the examination
procedure was taking place, Mr Monti said that aids linked to contacts and capacity expansion would be
ruled out. The only aids admissible for the time being are environment-related aids, R. & D. aid, aid for
modernisation and innovation, regional aids not serving to increase capacity, and so forth.

Could the Commission say what progress has been made to date in the examination procedure

1.
initiated in December 2000?

2.
Does the Commission not believe that a deadline has to be imposed on the negotiations with the
Korean authorities, since what is at stake, apart from the future of a modern, competitive EU shipbuilding
industry, is the credibility and respect due to the EU because it is capable of safeguarding its industry(cid:146)s
interests? If it agrees, could it say when the deadline will be?

3.
Could the Commission supply a list of the aids which the EU considers admissible? Among those
aids, what types have been launched since January 2001? What amounts have been granted, and which