WRITTEN QUESTION E-0978/02 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission. Approval of state aid for cableway installations in Italy and Austria.
Date: 2002-04-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Italy, State aid, access to EU information, cable transport, control of State aid, restriction on competition, tourist infrastructure

C 309 E/68

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

Given that the Commission is undoubtedly aware that this impasse is blocking one of the channels for
Madeira’s economic and social development, a process whose need for support in the shape of specific
measures, particularly in areas such as free trade zones, state aid and fiscal policy, was recently enshrined
as part of the text of the European Community Treaty, when does the Commission intend to take a
decision on this issue?

Does the Commission not think that its attitude in this specific case is diametrically opposed to its entire
policy of supporting the development of the outermost region in question?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2002)

As the Commission has previously indicated in its answers to Written Questions P-1373/00 (1) and
P-0277/01 (2) by the Honourable Member, it has no intention whatsoever of harming the economic and
social development of Madeira and regrets that there is a climate of uncertainty surrounding the future of
the Madeira Free Zone. Nevertheless, it also points out that the application of the aid scheme for the Free
Zone was authorised only until 31 December 2000. Any arrangements concerning the future application
of the scheme must therefore be examined by the Commission, taking account of factors that include the
island’s status as an outermost region, on the basis of a prior notification by Portugal.

In the meantime, the Commission has decided to start an investigation into the application of the scheme
during 2000 and would emphasise its intention to adopt a final decision as soon as possible. Since, as it
stressed in its decision initiating the investigation, any aid granted in the Free Zone after 1 January 2000
must be considered unlawful,
it takes the view that the eighteen-month deadline referred to by the
Honourable Member is not applicable in the present case.

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001.
(2) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001.

(2002/C 309 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0978/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Approval of state aid for cableway installations in Italy and Austria

The Commission announced in a press release of 27 February 2002 that it has approved state aid for
cableway installations in Italy and Austria. According to the Commission, aid is justified because the
installations are intended for purely local use and will not attract any users who are not resident in the
area.

1. What led the Commission to conclude that the ski lifts in Austria and Italy are intended exclusively
for local use?

Are there any studies, reports, working documents or similar information which helped the

2.
Commission to reach its decision?

Is the Commission now prepared to provide the report (or any parts of such a report presently

3.
available) requested in Written Question E-3179/01 of 7 November 2001? If not, why not?

4.

Can the Commission further provide me with all the documents used in reaching its decision?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

1.
In general, the Commission believes that not all cableway installation should be assessed in an
identical way, but that a distinction should be made between cableways destined to satisfy the generic
transport needs of the population and cableways supporting sport activities. Among the latter, a further

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/69

distinction has to be drawn between those that are capable of attracting users that have installations of
other Member States as an alternative and those that are mainly destined to local use.

In the case concerning aid to cableway installations in Austria (case N860/01), no adequate elements have
been forwarded to allow to conclude that the resort would fall into the category of purely local use
facilities. Therefore, the Commission had to conclude that the measures constituted aid in the meaning of
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, which, however, was found compatible in view of its limited aid intensity.

In the decision concerning aid to cableway installations in Italy (case N376/01),
it was accepted that
support to certain installations that were for local use would not be capable of affecting trade between
Member States. This, however, did not concern all installations, but only some of them. In other cases it
was concluded that an effect on trade was present and that aid could be justified only in view of its limited
intensity.

2.
To reach its decision the Commission has consulted various data on tourism and cableway
installations that is available from different sources. No single study or report constituted the decisive base
for the decision, nor, to the Commission’s knowledge, comprehensive statistical data on users of cableways
per country of origin and place of destination is available. It can be mentioned, however, that the Italian
authorities have presented copy of a study titled ‘Imprese turistiche e competitività (cid:1) Le caratteristiche
della produzione delle imprese turistiche’ and a report of Professor Carlo Eugenio Baldi of the University of
Bologna, both presented at the seminar on ‘Aiuti al turismo e regole di concorrenza’ held on 8 November
2000, at the premises of the Parliament. A copy will be sent to the Honourable Member and to the
Parliament’s secretariat.

As regards the report requested in Written Question E-3179/01 by the Honourable Member (1) of
3.
7 November 2001, the Commission can only repeat what already replied at the time, i.e. that no report as
such has been established.

It would be impossible to provide copy of all the electronic data and documents consulted by the

4.
Commission through the Internet in order to gain a better knowledge of the sector.

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 6.

(2002/C 309 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0985/02

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Damaging tax competition

As part of the work of the Primarolo group, a list of 66 damaging tax measures was drawn up. The
Netherlands was listed as having 10, and has now abolished 8 of them. However, it is now rumoured that
other Member States have copied measures which the Netherlands has abolished (see, for example, an
article in NRC Handelsblad of 18 February 2002). The countries in question are said to be Luxembourg,
France and Denmark. I have also heard from people with practical experience of the matter that in Spain it
is now possible to obtain a permanent-establishment financing ruling such that a permanent establishment
in Switzerland is subject to a very low rate of taxation. Such rulings are no longer possible in the
Netherlands.

The Member States concerned have apparently still not informed the Primarolo group of these measures.

Is it fair that these measures, which have been abolished in one Member State on the basis of the

1.
work of the Primarolo group, should be introduced in another?

2. Will the Commission investigate whether the above rumours are true?

3. Will the Commission take action if it becomes apparent that Member States are introducing measures
which have been abolished in another Member State on the basis of the work of the Primarolo group? If
so, what action?