WRITTEN QUESTION E-3273/01 by Frank Vanhecke (NI) to the Commission. Aid for the airline industry.
Date: 2001-11-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, air traffic, air transport, bankruptcy, competence of the Member States, restriction on competition, structural adjustment

C 147 E/140

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

The Nawab’s illness has been exacerbated by his period of confinement, and in the interests of his health
and peace in Balochistan this would be a significant gesture.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

Mr Khair Baksh Marri has been active in provincial politics in Balochistan since the 1970s. He was arrested
on 11 January 2000 and charged with the murder of a Balochistan High Court judge. He has now been
released.

According to information obtained through the Delegation of the Commission in Islamabad, Mr Khair
Baksh Marri has been seeking to leave Pakistan for Europe on medical grounds. While the Commission is
not aware of the Pakistan government’s grounds for refusing Mr Khair Baksh permission to leave Pakistan,
its Delegation will raise the case with the Union’s Human Rights Working Group in Islamabad.

(2002/C 147 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3273/01

by Frank Vanhecke (NI) to the Commission

(26 November 2001)

Subject: Aid for the airline industry

The recent failure of the Belgian airline Sabena has painfully demonstrated the weak market conditions
under which the European airline industry is suffering.

Questions may be raised in connection with the decision by the Commission to ban the Belgian
from stepping in to provide financial aid to the company. The issue of distortion of
government
competition by governments is clearly being very narrowly interpreted by the Commission. The fact that,
in the case of Sabena, some 12 000 jobs are at risk justifies the wish to look for alternative solutions with
a view to avoiding such catastrophes in social terms in future.

Does the Commission not consider that there is an urgent need to revise the directives on competition to
make it possible for governments to step in to provide financial aid when crises of this kind occur in
national industries?

Is the Commission considering other ways of helping industries in difficulties come through slumps and
periods of recession?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2002)

The Commission decided on 17 October 2001 to authorise the Belgian authorities to grant a rescue aid, in
the form of a short term loan, to Sabena. On 9 November 2001, following Sabena’s bankruptcy, the
Commission confirmed that it would not object to the use of this loan for the benefit of the Sabena
subsidiary DAT.

The EC Treaty imposes a general ban on state aid with certain exceptions. One exception which the
Commission has allowed is to rescue and restructure companies in difficulty. However, the Commission
believes that restructuring aid should be necessary at most once for a single beneficiary. Sabena has already
benefited from such an aid.

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/141

The Commission believes that there can be no doubt of the severe distortion of competition that can be
caused by repeated State aid to rescue and restructure failing companies. Such aid prevents the market
from operating efficiently because it rewards commercial failure rather than commercial success. It also
tends to delay necessary adjustment and worsen the impact when the beneficiary company’s problems are
finally confronted.

The Commission therefore believes that state aid is not the appropriate response to the less favourable
economic conditions facing the Community. Other responses, such as general measures affecting the
economy in general, and structural adjustments, seem more appropriate. The majority of such steps are in
the competence of Member States.

(2002/C 147 E/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3276/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 November 2001)

Subject: Transfer of OLAF officials

With reference to the subject of question P-0964/01 (1), it is curious that two OLAF officials (Organisation
Lutte Antifraude Européenne) who had been investigating the VAT margin scheme for several months, and
collaborating with the Italian authorities, have been transferred to different areas of responsibility.

Their successors will now naturally first have to familiarise themselves with the subject, which will result in
further delays.

Can the Commission explain this transfer and give a clear reason for it, thereby dispelling any suspicion of
a connection between the officials’ transfer and the matter of the ‘margin scheme’?

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 164.

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2002)

The Commission would point out that the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF)
operational aspects of
independently in these matters (1).

is responsible for the
the investigation referred to by the Honourable Member; OLAF acts fully

With regard to value added tax (VAT), OLAF, at the request of the competent national authorities, gives
assistance in conducting investigations and ensures that where it cooperates, no delays occur in dealing
with the cases.

(1) See Commission Decision of 28 April 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom establishing the European Antifraud Office
(OLAF), and European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 and Council Regulation (Euratom)
No 1074/1999 of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Antifraud Office (OLAF),
OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.