WRITTEN QUESTION E-0261/02 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The Council.
Date: 2002-02-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European Commissioner, image, press release

C 301 E/36

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

(2002/C 301 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0260/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 February 2002)

Subject: Treatment of seignorage revenue and payments to the public exchequer

1. Will the Commission detail the treatment, for Maastricht Treaty purposes and those of the Stability
and Growth Pact, of seignorage revenue accruing to national central banks?

2.

How is the revenue treated?

Does it enter into public surplus/deficit calculations when accruing to the central bank, or when paid

3.
as a dividend or transfer to the public exchequer?

4. What guidelines or policies are there concerning payments to national exchequers?

Can these include payments on account of accumulated past reserves, and would these be counted as

5.
revenue in assessing public deficits?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

According to the decision by the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) on
1.
6 December 2001 monetary income will be pooled and allocated to the national central banks according
to Article 32.5. Neither the Statute of the ECB nor Decision 2001/914/EC of the ECB of 6 December 2001
on the allocation of monetary income of the national central banks of participating Member States from
the financial year 2002 (ECB/2001/16) (1) contain regulations for the use of monetary income. For this
reason the treatment could differ across the Member States that have adopted the single currency. In
particular the treatment of monetary income allocated by the ECB for other purposes in accordance with
the EC Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact will not differ from the treatment of monetary income in
preceding years.

The European system of national and regional accounts (ESA) framework does not identify
2., 3. and 5.
monetary income (so-called seigniorage) as it is an analytical concept only. The transactions and balance
sheet adjustments involved are ‘below the line’ and should therefore not affect the general government
surplus/deficit. In case that there are exceptional gains from the transition to the single currency (euro cash
changeover) any resulting transfers to a euro area central government should be treated as a financial
transaction not affecting the government surplus/deficit but potentially affecting government debt.

4.
The Commission is not aware of a policy guideline applicable to all the Member States. Thus, it is up
to the Member States to decide upon these issues and information about the actual decisions there have to
be collected at the level of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 337, 20.12.2001.

(2002/C 301 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0261/02

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2002)

Subject: The Council

Can the Commission reconcile Commissioner Lamy’s view that ‘The Franco-German couple is the matrix
for compromise in the European Union, the forerunner for important compromises’, with the statement
made by the President of the Commission’s spokesman that,
‘In our view, no state is more equal than
another’, and if so, how?

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/37

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

The comment by the Member of the Commission responsible for Trade was expressed as his personal
political assessment of 50 years of the story of European integration. The President’s spokesman was
referring to one of the basic principles of the Union, i.e. the equal treatment of Member States. The two
positions are expressed in two different contexts and for two different purposes and, therefore, they do not
need to be reconciled.

(2002/C 301 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0311/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Scrutiny of Sävsjö municipality’s sale of the town sanatorium

According to reports in the media (Dagens Nyheter of 27 January 2002), the Commission is to look into
Sävsjö municipality’s sale in 1999 of the town’s former sanatorium, the surrounding park and what used
to be a doctor’s residence.

The sale price and local authority grants together with many other advantages a private purchaser secured
to convert the sanatorium into a hotel and conference centre upset other local businesspeople. The latter
considered they had been beaten with the help of taxpayers’ money, and legal proceedings are still ongoing
in this connection. The Administrative Court of Appeal, however, found in the municipality’s favour, but
the objectors are now said to have approached the Commission.

It is not certain what political decisions a municipality can take to promote business locally without
affecting free competition in the internal market in the process.

Does the Commission intend to deliver an opinion on this matter? How many times a year does it make
inquiries of the various Member States’ governments concerning similar decisions that have been taken by
local and regional political bodies, on the grounds that they could adversely affect free competition in the
internal market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2002)

The Commission welcomes the decentralisation process which takes place in several Member States and
whereby local authorities are entrusted with the task to conduct economic policy and promote business.

However, local as well as central authorities are subject to the EC Treaty competition rules. In particular,
‘aid granted by regional and local bodies of the Member States, whatever their status and description, must
be scrutinized to determine whether it complies with Article 87 §1 of the Treaty’ (1).

Thus, the Commission should be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any
plans to grant or alter aid put forward by the local authorities. The proposed measures should not be put
into effect until this procedure has resulted in a final decision.

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 entities having an economic activity and which distort or
threaten to distort competition and trade between Member States.

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 (2), 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.