WRITTEN QUESTION E-0254/02 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. UK heritage regeneration grants.
Date: 2002-02-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, architectural heritage, control of State aid, economic support, heritage protection

C 309 E/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

opening of the accession negotiations. Furthermore, the European Council in Laeken (14 and 15 December
2001) specifically lists ten candidate countries, which could join the Union as early as 2004.

The situation with regard to property rights is, however, due to the war and post-war history of the
candidate countries particularly complex. It cannot be overlooked that expropriations took place long
before the creation of the Community and the entering into force of the Treaty of Rome and are therefore,
in principle, not relevant for the transposition and the implementation of the Union-acquis in the
candidate countries.

Problems related to the restitution of confiscated properties are therefore essentially the responsibility of
each candidate country, and, as the case may be, of the European Court for Human Rights. Candidate
countries have hitherto chosen approaches, which they consider most appropriate to their historical, social
and economic context. Even where no specific legislation has been enacted, each individual has the right to
take his or her case to the courts under existing legislation. After the accession to the Union, and within
the scope of application of the EC-Treaty, any discrimination on the grounds of nationality (of a Member
State) or based on racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, will be prohibited.

Notwithstanding the lack of Union-competence for the system of property ownership (Article 295 EC), the
Commission has noted the following developments in the candidate countries on this sensitive issue: in
August 2001, the government of the Czech Republic, took the first decision (cid:1) based on a specific act that
entered into force in July 2000 (cid:1) on the transfer of property and land to the Association of Jewish Czech
Communities. In the Slovak Republic, church property has been returned on the basis of a law from 1994,
which covers the period from 1945 onwards. Furthermore, a government commission, which has been
established in August 2001, is drafting legislation with reference to the period during World War II; such
legislation would specifically deal with restitution of property of Jewish Slovak Communities. Poland has
legislation with regard to restoring ownership of communal property;
in this context a number of
synagogues as well as churches, schools, etc. have been returned or compensation has been granted. In
Romania, the Real Estate Restitution Law entered into force in February 2001, setting out the basic
principles and procedures to be applied for the restitution of property. The law also covers the 1940-1945
period and should thus satisfy restitution demands of Jews who suffered from discriminatory legislation
during the war. At the same time it needs to be mentioned that the implementation of this law has so far
been rather unsatisfactory. In Slovenia the Denationalisation Act of 1991 sets the legal basis for the
denationalisation process.

The AVNOJ decrees (2) were, again, adopted and implemented in the very specific historical setting of
World War II well before the establishment of the Community and before the Rome Treaty entered into
force. With regard to the Member State mainly concerned (cid:1) Austria (cid:1) the establishment of a Slovenian-
Austrian commission of historians dealing among other issues with the repercussions of the World War II
period, is a positive development. Furthermore, the denationalisation process in Slovenia is ongoing and by
September 2001 decisions have been made on 61 % of
these
achievements, progress in this field nevertheless should be speeded up. The issue of denationalisation has
been on the agenda of a number of meetings in the framework of the Europe Agreement (cid:1) most recently
of the Association Committee in Brussels on 15 February 2002.

the property claimed.

In spite of

(1) COM(2001) 700 final.
(2) As far as relevant for this question, these decrees state that inhabitants of German and Austrian origin should be

expelled and that their property should be confiscated.

(2002/C 309 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0254/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2002)

Subject: UK heritage regeneration grants

The UK makes available heritage regeneration grants, financed through the state lottery, to enable the
restoration by private owners of listed buildings. The grants bridge the deficit between the market value of
a building and the cost incurred by a private owner to regenerate it.

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/17

Fears have been expressed that these grants, which play an important role in ensuring the survival and
continued use of buildings of historic importance, may now be prohibited by the Commission under state
aid rules.

Is this the Commission’s intention, and, if so, what suggestions has it for ensuring that in the UK it
continues to be possible to bring about the costly restoration of historic properties which have a relatively
low market value?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

The Commission welcomes the restoration of buildings of historic value, whereby the Member States select
the eligible buildings.

State aid rules of the Treaty certainly do not stand in the way of such projects, where the costs which the
market does not accept to bear, are taken over by the State.

It has to be reminded in that respect that the prohibition of State aids laid down in Article 87 §1 of the
EC Treaty concerns only selective advantages to undertakings, i.e. entities having an economic activity, and
which distort or threaten to distort competition.

According to the Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of
Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (1), aid measures are deemed not to meet all the
criteria of Article 87 §1 of the EC Treaty, if they don’t exceed EUR 100 000 over a period of three years.

Furthermore, Article 87 §1 of the EC Treaty only prohibits State aids insofar as they affect trade between
Member States. It is questionable to what extent, if any, heritage regeneration grants financed through the
State lottery and allowing the restoration of buildings with historic value affect trade between Member
States.

In case these grants would satisfy the criteria set out in Article 87 §1 of the EC Treaty Article 87 §3 (d)
would provide for an exemption to the prohibition of State aids concerning aid to promote culture and
trading conditions and competition in the
heritage conservation where such aid does not affect
Community to an extent that is contrary to the common interest.

(1) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.

(2002/C 309 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0316/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Aid to Afghanistan

It has been widely reported that during the last few months large quantities of poppy seeds have been
planted in northern Afghanistan. The promise of a bumper crop, together with the release of large opium
stocks built up by the Taleban, is responsible for the market price for a kilogram of opium in Kandahar
plummeting from $ 1 600 to $ 330. A farmer will receive about $ 300 for a kilogram of opium as opposed
to less than $ 1 for a kilogram of wheat.

What steps will the European Union take to encourage farmers to earn a good living through the
cultivation of alternative crops, and will European Union aid be linked to a willingness of Afghan officials
and warlords to respect the new government’s decree prohibiting the production of opium as well as
respect for the authority of the central government? Will the provision of aid also be conditional upon
there being no reintroduction of the barbaric practice of stoning women to death for adultery?