WRITTEN QUESTION E-1999/01 by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE)and Carlos Westendorp y Cabeza (PSE) to the Council. Expiry of the ECSC Treaty and coal aid.
Date: 2001-07-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European treaties, State aid, coal industry, energy policy, intervention policy

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/93

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1995/01, E-1997/01, E-1998/01 and E-2000/01
given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2001)

1.
By decision of 25 July 2001 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation on State
aid to the coal industry after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty (1). This proposal has been sent for adoption to
the Council, which will decide after Parliament, the ECSC Consultative Committee, the Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions have delivered their opinions.

The adoption of a new system of State aid to the Community coal
industry was a priority in the
Commission(cid:146)s work programme. Adopting new rules as speedily as possible should help to smooth the
transition between the present and future systems of State aid, enabling the restructuring and
rationalisation of the sector to be carried out in the best possible conditions.

2.
The system proposed by the Commission amounts to the creation by the Member States of an
in order to improve the Community(cid:146)s security of energy
indigenous base of primary energy sources,
supply. A primary energy base of this kind means promoting or maintaining Community sources of
energy, especially renewables and coal. Accordingly, the proposed system is not to be seen as an isolated
initiative restricted to a single primary energy source but as part of a set of coordinated measures.

3. When the ECSC Treaty expires, State aid to the coal industry will fall within the scope of Community
rules, more specifically Article 87 (ex Article 92) et seq. of the EC Treaty.

Article 87 of the EC Treaty raises the principle of incompatibility of State aid with the common market.
State aid is, however, only incompatible in so far as it affects trade between Member States and distorts or
threatens to distort competition by favouring certain firms or products. The case law has broadly defined
these criteria (2), in this sector as well. In this context it is necessary to examine the effects of aid to coal
production on the energy market as a whole, for the reason that the gradual creation of an internal energy
market necessitates a policy of strict control of aid in the energy sector, which has to include control of all
State aid granted to primary energy sources, including coal production.

The system proposed by the Commission is based on Articles 87 (3) (e) and 89 (ex Article 94) of the

4.
EC Treaty.

(1) COM(2001) 423 final.
(2) See lastly in particular the ruling of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2001 in the joint cases T-12/99 and

T-63/99, UK Coal plc v. Commission, not yet published.

(2002/C 81 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1999/01

by Mar(cid:237)a Rodr(cid:237)guez Ramos (PSE)
and Carlos Westendorp y Cabeza (PSE) to the Council

(12 July 2001)

Subject: Expiry of the ECSC Treaty and coal aid

23 July 2002 is the date upon which the ECSC Treaty and Decision 3632/93/ECSC (1) (governing the
authorisation of coal aid) will expire. In view of the urgent need for a new aid scheme to be adopted, the
Council must already have drawn up a timetable for negotiations on this matter and have set priorities.

What is the Council(cid:146)s timetable for dealing with this matter?

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12.

C 81 E/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

Reply

(6 December 2001)

The Council
is aware of the very tight schedule in the run-up to expiry of the ECSC Treaty and
Decision 3632/93/ECSC and will give suitable priority to the proposal for a Council Regulation on State
aid to the coal industry adopted by the Commission on 25 July 2001 and presented to the Council on
30 July 2001.

(2002/C 81 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2011/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(12 July 2001)

Subject: G(cid:246)teborg Summit and removing the causes of violent conflict at meetings of European heads of

government

Can the Council confirm that during preparations for the EU Summit of 15 and 16 June 2001 in
the police began by engaging in constructive dialogue with the organisers of peaceful

1.
G(cid:246)teborg,
demonstrations whose intention it was to call attention to a divergent opinion during the summit?

2.
Can the Council also confirm that the above approach, based on contact, dialogue and de-escalation,
was suddenly abandoned by the police a few days before the summit and that from that moment on they
were no longer approachable to demonstrators? For what reasons?

3. What assumptions underlie the unexpectedly harsh approach to maintaining order as of Thursday
15 June, which included forcing those present in certain sleeping accommodation to lie flat on the ground,
police beatings and intimidation, causing possible agents provocateurs to mingle with the demonstrators,
taking individuals into preventive detention and shooting with live ammunition.

4.
Does the Council share my view that groups wish to draw attention to their divergent view by
peaceful means may, in the event of a police deployment experienced by them as unreasonable be so
demoralised that they will out of desperation allow themselves be led on by a very small minority who
may possible not have come with peaceful intentions?

5.
How will the Council help to remove the now much sharper opposition between the Europe of the
leaders, whose main interests are in centralisation, uniformity, economic liberalisation, spending cuts and a
high-handed show of force and the Europe of the citizen that gives priority to democracy, activity on a
small scale, social equality, environment protection, disarmament and social services?

6.
Is the Council prepared to engage in constructive talks with the Member States responsible for
security in each instance to ensure by way of consistently maintained de-escalating and tolerant policing
operations that subsequent summit meetings will no longer be at the centre of outbreaks of violence?

Reply

(27 November 2001)

As the Honourable Member knows, the Council has addressed this issue on two occasions (cid:129) at its

1.
meetings on 13 July 2001 (Justice and Home Affairs) and 16 July 2001 (General Affairs).

At the first of those meetings, the Council and the representatives of the Governments of the

2.
Member States:

(cid:129) recognised that the host country is responsible for maintaining public order and safety in the context

of meetings of the European Council and other comparable events;

(cid:129) recalled that one of the objectives of the European Union is to maintain and develop the Union as an

area of freedom, security and justice;