WRITTEN QUESTION E-1371/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. European shipbuilding industry.
Date: 2001-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU industrial policy, South Korea, aid for restructuring, common commercial policy, dumping, investment aid, shipbuilding, trade dispute

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

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/39

Member States have received them? What methods will the Commission employ to enable the aids to be
put to wider and more intensive use? Has the range of aids been restricted, or is the Commission currently
considering whether to authorise other kinds of aid? What advantages would be accorded to Objective 1
regions where the aids are concerned?

4.
How do its three Members concerned, Mr Lamy (trade), Mr Monti (competition), and Mr Liikanen
(enterprise), work together in this area within the Commission? How are responsibilities split among them,
and how do they coordinate their activities?

Reply given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

1.
At the request of the Committee of EU Shipbuilders(cid:146) Associations (CESA), a procedure against certain
Korean subsidies was initiated under the Trade Barriers Regulation in December 2000. In the light of a
detailed inquiry into Korean and Community shipyards, the report of 8 May 2001 concluded that the
Korean shipyards had received subsidies, that these had caused the Community industry considerable
injury (particularly in the container and oil products and chemical carriers sectors), that the Commission
should immediately approach the Korean authorities with a demand to withdraw the subsidies or eliminate
the injurious effects thereof and that, if no amicable settlement was reached within a few weeks, the
Commission should open proceedings under the Understanding governing the WTO(cid:146)s dispute settlement
procedure.

2.
In the light of the conclusions of the said report, and unless negotiations with the Korean authorities
provide a solution by the beginning of July 2001, the Commission will decide whether the time has come
to initiate proceedings in the WTO.

3.
The Community legislation governing aids to shipbuilding is Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of
29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding (1). Subject to specific conditions, the following
investment aid for innovation, regional
aids are lawful: aids in the event of closure and restructuring,
investment aid, research and development aid and aid for protecting the environment. This year the only
case of aid notified to Commission has been one of aid granted for research and development

Aid linked to contracts is also authorised as long as it is in line with the 1981 OECD Understanding on
Export Credits for Ships.

In consultation with the industry the Commission is currently looking into the possibility of adjusting the
provisions on aid for research and development.

4.
The three Members of the Commission with responsibilities in this field (the Commissioners for
Trade, Competition and Enterprise and the Information Society, including the fourth Commission report to
the Council on the situation in world shipbuilding) (2), collaborated actively in deciding the Commission(cid:146)s
position in this matter, in keeping with their respective areas of competence.

(1) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.
(2) COM(2001) 219 final.

(2002/C 40 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1395/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 May 2001)

Subject: Cancellation of March call for TEN telecom projects

Could the Commission explain the cancellation of
for TEN telecoms projects (for
submission in June)? What arrangements have been made for the dispersal of the 2001 budget in light of
this cancellation? What arrangements will be made for further calls for projects in 2001?

the March call