WRITTEN QUESTION P-0745/02 by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission. Unlawful public financial aid.
Date: 2002-03-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Portugal, State aid, competition law, control of State aid, interpretation of the law, modernisation aid, rubber industry, tax relief

C 309 E/42

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

(2002/C 309 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0745/02

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Unlawful public financial aid

It appears from the Commission’s answer to Question H-0040/02 (1) concerning aid granted to the tyre
further
manufacturer Continental
information on this subject. The Commission stresses, however, that all public aid, whether from the
Member States or from the European Union, must conform to EU rules on state aid.

the Commission has asked the Portuguese authorities

that

for

According to recent reports in the Swedish media, the company in question has, in addition to what it
received from the EU Structural Funds, also obtained state aid, possibly in the form of company-specific
tax breaks.

Does the Commission consider such state aid really to be compatible with EU competition rules? If not, is
it prepared to do what it can to ensure that the company in question pays back the monies it has received?

(1) Written answer of 5.2.2002.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2002)

As stated in its reply to the Honourable Member’s question H-0040/02, in response to its request to the
Portuguese authorities the Commission received the following information on the cofinancing granted to
Mabor-Continental:

Total aid granted under the structural Funds:

(cid:1) EUR 7 891 344 for the 1989-1993 programming period;

(cid:1) EUR 14 515 707 for the 1994-1999 programming period.

This aid was paid as part of the first and second programmes for the modernisation of Portuguese industry
(PEDIP)
the above periods. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) contributed
EUR 21 224 134 and the European Social Fund (ESF) EUR 1 182 917.

for

As regards the Community Support Framework (CSF)
for the 2000-2006 programming period, the
Commission will consider any request from the Portuguese authorities in accordance with the terms of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural
Funds (1). In this connection, on 5 February 2002 the Commission reminded the Portuguese authorities of
the information which must be sent to it in the case of projects whose total eligible cost exceeds
EUR 50 million, pursuant to of Article 26 of the above Regulation.

Furthermore, the Commission has taken notice of recent reports in the European media of possible State
aid measures awarded in the form of tax breaks by the Portuguese government to the tyre manufacturer
Mabor-Continental.

The information at the disposal of the Commission prompted its services to request the Portuguese
government to provide all the information necessary to assess the presumed aid measures under the
EC Treaty rules on State aid. This information should enable the Commission to determine whether such
measures exist and, if so, whether the Portuguese government was obliged to notify in advance any State
aid measures,
in favour of this company to the Commission, or whether such
measures are covered by an aid scheme approved by the Commission where individual notification is not
required.

including fiscal ones,

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/43

If such a notification obligation was not observed in the case of Mabor-Continental, the measures are to be
assessed in the light of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty in order to establish their compatibility with
the common market. If the alleged measures are found to be illegal and incompatible aid, the Commission
has to require the recovery of any sums of aid including interest already paid out to this company. The
Commission should examine whether the measures should have been notified under the State aid rules on
the basis of the response of the Portuguese authorities.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 309 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0752/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 March 2002)

Subject: Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) in the UK

Is the Commission aware of the PFI approach in the UK and does the Commission consider it to be in line
with existing public procurement legislation? Furthermore, does the Commission judge that such practices
are in line with the Commission’s proposal for a new directive on the coordination of procedures for the
award of public supply contracts, public service contracts and public work contracts (1), particularly with
regard to Articles 1(7) and 32? Finally, what would the Commission’s evaluation be of the consequences
were the Directive to be amended according to the amendments passed by the European Parliament, in
particular Amendment 24?

(1) COM(2000) 275 final, OJ C 29 E, 30.1.2001, p. 11.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2002)

is a broad concept covering a multitude of
The United Kingdom’s Private Finance Initiative (PFI)
arrangements where the public sector contracts to procure services using private sector management skills
and private finance. The exact legal and economic make-up of a given PFI transaction will determine the
extent to which the matter is regulated by public procurement legislation. Subject to this, a given PFI
transaction may, for example, constitute a public contract within the scope of the Community public
procurement directives, a works concession subjet
to minimal regulation under Council Directive
93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works
contracts (1) or a services concession outside the scope of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992
relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (2), and subject to
general provisions of Community law. The Commission would therfore need a detailed description of any
given transaction to be able to consider whether it is in conformity with existing or proposed legislation.

In its proposal of 10th May 2000 on the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public supply,
service and works contracts the Commission came forward with a new buying technique known as the
competitive dialogue designed to allow a degree of flexibility in the award of particularly complex
contracts. The Commission considers that the competitive dialogue may be an appropriate framework for,
among other things, the award of complex PFI public contracts.

As regards Article 1(7) and Article 32 of the above proposal, the Commission is not aware of any general
practices concerning the use of framework agreements in PFI contracts.

Concerning the Parliament’s Amendment 24, the Commission has already indicated to the Parliament that
it would be prepared to accept this amendment in principle if it is modified so as to clarify that several
contracting authorities may enter into the same framework agreement at the same time.

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.
(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.