WRITTEN QUESTION E-3464/01 by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission. Takeover of MAA Assicurazioni (Italy) — infringement of the principle of competition.
Date: 2002-01-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: free competition, freedom to provide services, infringement of EU law, insurance, insurance company, management audit

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/65

formulate policies,
consistent with stable prices and a balanced budget over the whole economic cycle’.

including microeconomic policies, designed to achieve full employment which are

Does the Commission believe that it is these objectives which underlie the Growth and Stability pact and
which Member States does the Commission believe are furthest from achieving them?

Can the Commission explain the rationale behind the rule which prevents receipts from privatisations
being deducted from budgetary deficits given not only the boost to economic activity and efficiency that
such privatisations can generate but also the fact that the sale of public assets result in real and not illusory
benefits to national exchequers and appear to be consistent with the economic objectives outlined above?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2002)

The primary aim of the Stability and Growth Pact is to safeguard sound public finances as a means to
ensure strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation. In this way, national budgetary
policies will support a stability-oriented monetary policy and ensure that Member States can deal with
normal cyclical fluctuations without incurring excessive deficits.

Under this framework, budgetary positions in the euro area has continued to be consolidated in recent
years. In 1997, the reference year for the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) qualification among the
first wave, the average budget deficit in the euro area was 2,6 % of gross domestic product (GDP) while in
2000 it had been reduced to 0,8 % of GDP. The majority of Member States have now achieved underlying
budgetary positions that are ‘close to balance or in surplus’, in line with the requirements of the Stability
and Growth Pact. However, in a few Member States (Germany, France, Italy and Portugal), budget positions
still show deficits. This implies that further consolidation efforts will be necessary in the medium-term, as
is also planned in the respective stability programmes.

On the issue of the neutrality of privatisation receipts to the government net lending in the European
System of National and Regional Accounts in the Community (ESA), the efficiency and rationale of
privatisations is in no way questioned by this recording. It should be recognised that in an economic
accounting system like ESA, differently to the practice in cash based public accounts, a distinction is made
between financial and non-financial
transactions as well as financial and non-financial assets. The
privatisation of a public corporation, that is, the sale of a financial asset (the shares in the corporation)
against cash (also a financial asset) constitutes a typical financial transaction that neither has any impact on
government net wealth nor implies any distribution of income between economic sectors. However, of
course, when the economic efficiency gains materialise these will, amongst other things, show in the
growth of tax bases and government revenues. Furthermore, it should be noted that privatisation receipts
do contribute to reduce Maastricht gross debt.

(2002/C 172 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3464/01

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(4 January 2002)

Subject: Takeover of MAA Assicurazioni (Italy) < infringement of the principle of competition

The events before and during the takeover of all the insurance business of MAA Assicurazioni by SAI <
Società Assicuratrice Industriale Spa < for a token price of Lit 1 000, showed a number of anomalies.

C 172 E/66

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

In actual fact a more favourable offer had been made on 19 May 1995 by Toro Assicurazioni Spa,
envisaging the acquisition of all the insurance activities of MAA Spa and entailing recognition in favour of
the transferor < and hence its shareholders < of a value to be agreed with the special commissioner for
the MAA. However, the proposed agreement with Toro was turned down by the commissioner, to the
obvious detriment of the MAA shareholders, without any intervention on the part of the ISVAP watchdog
body, which in fact subsequently authorised the takeover by SAI.

Under the terms of the takeover, the ‘preferred risks’ premium portfolio was indicated as representing 8 %
of the total value, whereas according to the market evaluation in the civil courts it turned out to be worth
80 %.

Furthermore, it emerges that the commissioner placed an unjustified additional burden of around Lit 120
in the ISVAP report of
billion on the MAA reserves, as confirmed by Prof. Gianluca Ottaviani
12 December 1995, thereby favouring SAI Spa in the acquisition negotiations.

Does the Commission not consider that the shortcomings of the ISVAP in effect promoted a takeover
which constitutes a distortion of the principle of free competition?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his question concerning the role of ISVAP in the
take-over of all the insurance business of MAA Assicurazioni by SAI.

At the current time the Commission is unaware of the details referred to by the Member and is therefore
undertaking some preliminary enquiries before responding more fully to the Honourable Member’s
question.

The Commission has no direct role in the supervision of individual insurance undertakings in Member
States. In fact, neither the EC Treaty nor Community Insurance directives confer specific supervisory
powers upon the Commission, nor does the Commission authorise and supervise undertakings wishing to
write insurance business. It falls under the responsibility of each Member State to organise and effect this
national supervisory responsibility (see e.g. Article 9 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on
the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than
life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive (1),
as regards transfers of portfolios Article 12, and as regards qualified holdings on an insurance undertaking
Article 15 of Directive 92/49/EEC). The prudential supervision of MAA is therefore primarily a matter for
the Italian authorities. Moreover, decisions taken by Member States in respect of an insurance undertaking
under laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted in accordance with this Directive may be
subject to the right to apply to the courts (Article 56 of Directive 92/49/EEC).

Where an aggrieved party considers that national supervisory authorities have not properly respected the
requirements of the relevant Community Directives, redress may be sought by application to national
courts. In fact, national courts are competent to analyse whether a national supervisory authority when
carrying on its supervisory functions has complied with the supervisory law. They can also take
appropriate measures in order to ensure the respect of the law. The task of the Commission is to ensure
that, in exercising these supervisory powers, Member States respect their obligations under the relevant
Community directives and do not hinder the proper functioning of the internal market.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.