WRITTEN QUESTION P-2207/01 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission. Unlawful aid to Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH.
Date: 2001-07-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, control of State aid, restriction on competition, sawmill

C 81 E/130

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

(2002/C 81 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2207/01

by Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Unlawful aid to Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH

(17 July 2001)

It is reported in issue No 9 of the German magazine EUWID Laubholz, of 26 April 2001, that the EU
competition authorities are to investigate whether Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH(cid:146)s sawmill in Malchow has
received unlawful aid.

Will the Commission therefore state:

(cid:129) If it has reached any conclusion as regards its investigation into the aid granted and how much aid has

been granted to date?

(cid:129) How it intends to ensure that Pollmeier Massivholz does not use subsidies in future to undercut its

competitors in either the raw wood or the finished goods markets?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission has opened the formal investigation proceedings of Article 88 (2) of the EC Treaty on
13 March 2001 against aid granted to Pollmeier GmbH, Malchow and Pollmeier GmbH & Co. KG, K(cid:228)sslitz.
Both companies are related to Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH through their sole shareholder.

The authorities of the Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern granted investment aid for the creation of a
sawmill
in Malchow amounting to an aid intensity of 48,8 % gross of eligible investment costs of
€ 27,7 million.

The Land Thuringen granted investment aid for the setting up of a new sawmill and wood-processing
capacities in K(cid:228)sslitz. The total aid intensity amounts to 43,4 % gross of eligible investment costs of
€ 44,93 million.

Both investments are located in less-favoured regions in virtue of Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty. The
intensities of the above aid awards imply that the beneficiary in each case is a small and medium sized
enterprise (SME) in order for the aid to comply with the relevant rules, notably those on regional aid. The
Commission is therefore investigating whether the beneficiary of the aid meets the SME criteria laid down
by Community rules and, consequently, whether the whole of the aid is compatible with the common
market. Should this not be the case, the Commission will request the incompatible part of the aid to be
recovered in order to redress the distortion of competition.

(2002/C 81 E/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2211/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: Complain by Manfred Jost, complaint No 00/51228, SG (2000) A/14901 against the Federal

Republic of Germany concerning coal mining at the Warndt/Luisenthal mine

1.
Is the Commission aware that a complaint procedure by the person lodging this complaint
concerning the above colliery was already pending before the Commission and that in this case the Court
of Justice ruled against the Federal Republic of Germany for delay in transposing European law (Case
C-301/95)?

2.
Is the Commission aware that even after the Court of Justice(cid:146)s judgment in October 1998 the
national authorities (cid:129) the Saarland mining authorities (cid:129) continued to permit coal mining without
impact assessment (Directive 85/337/EEC (1)), despite being
carrying out the necessary environmental
repeatedly urged to do so by the complainant?