WRITTEN QUESTION E-3365/01 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission. Regional laws applicable within the Valle d'Aosta.
Date: 2001-12-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Valle d'Aosta, aid system, aid to agriculture, flood, regional aid, terms for aid

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/161

Austria

Portugal

Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom

2000

2001

912 382,09

534 238,01

651 386

1 808 616,60

2 902 639,84

1 454 753,68

518 815,68

673 605

2 255 669,69

4 819 118,07

(2002/C 147 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3362/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE)
and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE)to the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Subject: Campione d’Italia’s tax status

Following the searches last week by the Italian police of the houses of two managers of the Nada
Management Organisation (formerly known as Al Taqwa Management)
in the tiny Italian enclave of
Campione d’Italia and the subsequent questioning of the two individuals by Swiss authorities in Lugano,
could the Commission indicate whether tiny Italian enclave of Campione d’Italia is subject to the entire
acquis communautaire as applied to the rest of the Italian Republic or, instead, enjoys any derogations or
other special privileges?

In particular, will the proposed money-laundering directives as well as other similar measures designed to
fight organised crime and terrorism apply in full to this territory, and does the Commission believe reports
that it has already become a centre for such illicit activities?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2002)

The Italian municipality of Campione d’Italia is part of the Community, but is not part of the Community
territory for customs, VAT or excise duty purposes.

The Community single market legislation, including the anti-money laundering Directive, Council Directive
91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money
laundering (1), as recently amended, is fully applicable in Campione d’Italia. Third pillar measures to combat
organised crime and terrorism also apply to this enclave.

The Commission has no specific information on the level of illicit activities in Campione d’Italia.

(1) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991.

(2002/C 147 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3365/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Subject: Regional laws applicable within the Valle d’Aosta

On 13 October 2000 the Valle d’Aosta experienced terrible flooding which did a devastating amount of
damage. The regional government adopted a number of measures on the basis of the powers granted to it

C 147 E/162

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

to the region’s special autonomous status,

including (approximately a year ago) measures
pursuant
applicable to the agriculture sector. An appropriate draft
law was forwarded to the Commission’s
Directorate-General for Agriculture, since when a number of requests for documents and information have
been received via Italy’s permanent representation, such as a request for maps of the flooded areas and of
sediment measurements ? almost as though the flood was suspected of being a fabrication. Reading the
correspondence provokes feelings of bewilderment and frustration, since the Commission’s requests seem
to lack an awareness of the fact that any compensation to be paid to farmers in respect of flood damage
must necessarily be made available promptly. It seems incredible that the request has recently been
transferred to the register of unnotified aid because the Italian Government’s Civil Defence Order No. 3090
of 2000 was not notified to Brussels. It is quite obvious from a reading of the draft regional law that there
is no link between it and the Order.

Are the delays which have built up therefore justifiable? Despite what it says in the Treaties, should
priority not be given to natural disasters? Should an entirely transparent emergency procedure not be
devised as a matter of urgency?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2002)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties experienced in Valle d’Aosta following the flooding that
occurred on 13 October 2000.

As the Honourable Member says, Italy notified measures proposed by the regional authorities for granting
compensation to farmers. However, the Commission has established, from the additional
information
about the plan provided by the Italian authorities, that aid had been granted to the flood victims already
and that its main aim was to give a fresh boost to productive activities, in other words, to farming as well
as other activities.

In view of the fact that the Order introducing the aid has not been notified and since the Commission is
required to verify whether the aid granted to the farmers concerned did not represent overcompensation
for the damage suffered, the Commission was obliged to transfer the file comprising the whole range of
aids to the register of unnotified aids.

The Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the fact that under Article 13(2) of Council Regulation
(EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
Treaty (1), the two-month period for the examination of State aids which have been notified does not apply
where an aid has not been notified.

That being so, the Commission can provide assurances that the matter of Valle d’Aosta will be dealt with
at the earliest opportunity.

On the particular issue of the sediment measurements referred to in the question, the Commission did not
request documents of this kind. As one of the measures contemplated by the regional authorities following
the flooding was likely to create environmental problems by increasing the density of livestock on certain
types of land, the Commission simply asked for an assessment of the impact the presence of such animals
would have on the land in question.

(1) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

(2002/C 147 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3377/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2001)

Subject: Administrative authorities for the operational programmes in Greece

Could the Commission state whether it is satisfied with the way in which the administrative authorities for
the Third CSF operational programmes in Greece are working? If not, which administrative authorities
present problems and why? Has it made any comments on this subject to the Greek authorities?