WRITTEN QUESTION E-1301/02 by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission. Voting rights of EU citizens.
Date: 2002-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU law - national law, United Kingdom, nationality, residence, right to stand for election, right to vote

C 92 E/44

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

up to 20 % and, if not, are there provisions for reducing the level of subsidy to ensure that state aids, even
when approved by the Commission, enhance rather than reduce competition within the Union? In
particular, are the rules sufficiently flexible to allow challenges to be made more than two months after the
Commission has made a determination on the legality of a state subsidy where there is a significant change
in circumstance on the part of either the recipient of the state subsidy or a competitor?

Finally, is the Commission certain that the levels of subsidy provided to Mecklenburger Metallguss do not
exceed those approved by the Commission and what is the limit of discretion on the part of the
Commission regarding the precise level of state subsidy which can be permitted at any particular time?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2002)

According to current State aid rules Member States can grant state aid for rescuing and restructuring of
companies in difficulties, if strict conditions are complied with. The Commission bases its assessment of
the compatibility of the aid in these cases on the 1999 Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing
and restructuring firms in difficulty. All individual grants of State aid to such companies are thoroughly
scrutinised by the Commission on the basis of the guidelines.

The reason for allowing aid to be granted for restructuring of companies in difficulties is to enable them to
restore their long term viability, so that they can compete in the market without any further State
intervention. This was also the aim of the restructuring of Mecklenburger Metallguss. At the same time the
aid should not distort competition in the market and the Commission requires a reduction of the capacities
receiving the aid in question. The restructuring of
of
Mecklenburger Metallguss was, at the time, not considered to create undue distortions of competition. In
addition, Mecklenburger Metallguss reduced its capacities in the segment for standard cast iron products
by 40 %.

the aided company as a counterpart

for

As regards your question on possibilities of changing the Commission Decision, the Commission can
revoke its decision on its own initiative, where the decision was based on incorrect information that was
provided during the procedure and that was a determining factor in the decision. The Commission
Decision can also be challenged before the Court of First Instance by an interested party within two
months of the publication of the measure.

According to the restructuring guidelines, the aid must be limited to the strict minimum required for the
restructuring plan to be carried out; it must be limited in time to the restructuring period; and must be
earmarked for measures identified in the restructuring plan. When assessing the aid, the Commission needs
to ensure that these criteria are fulfilled. The Commission is not in a possession of any information
indicating that Mecklenburger Metallguss might have received any aid other than the DEM 13,75 million
approved in the 1999 decision and part of the aid granted to Dieselmotorenwerk Rostock GmbH, also
partially approved in 1999 (1).

(1) Commission Decision 1999/600/EC of 21 April 1999 on the State aid granted by Germany to Dieselmotorenwerk

Rostock GmbH (cid:1) OJ L 232, 4.9.1999.

(2003/C 92 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1301/02

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Voting rights of EU citizens

Is the Commission aware that currently UK citizens who have been living abroad for more than 15 years
lose their right to vote in the UK? Is the Commission aware of similar rules within other EU Member
States? Can the Commission comment as to whether it plans to take any action on this issue?

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/45

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

The Honourable Member raises the point that British citizens having been living abroad for more than
15 years lose their right to vote in the United Kingdom.

The right to vote of own nationals of a Member State in elections of that Member State belongs fully to
the competence of the Member States, independent whether those citizens reside in its territory or outside
of its territory. This is explicitly confirmed in the relevant Directives 93/109/EC (1) and Directive 94/80/
EC (2), which provide that nothing in those Directives affects each Member State’s provisions concerning
the right to vote or to stand as a candidate of its nationals who reside outside of its territory.

The Community law guarantees only that every Union citizen has the right to vote and stand as a
candidate at elections to the European Parliament and at municipal elections in the Member State in which
he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State.

Because of the lack of the competence the Commission does not plan to take any actions relating to the
right to vote of nationals of a Member State residing outside of its territory.

(1) Council Directive 93/109/EC of 6 December 1993, laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right
to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a
Member State of which they are not nationals, OJ L 329, 30.12.1993.

(2) Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994, laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right
to vote and stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of
which they are not nationals, OJ L 368, 31.12.1994.

(2003/C 92 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1310/02

by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Lack of minimum procedural guarantees and human rights violations and their implications for

application of the European arrest warrant as from April 2003

Within the framework of closer cooperation in the law enforcement sphere, and in particular the Council
framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States
(14867/01 COPEN), mutual recognition is based on observance of fundamental rights.

This mutual trust is often no more than a political desire. As an illustration, a report recently published by
Amnesty International details repeated inhuman treatment and torture perpetrated by government officials
in Spain over the period 1995 to 2002. The European Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union (Article 19) and the proposal for a Council framework decision on the European arrest warrant
(recital 12a) stipulate that ‘no one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a
serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment’.

It is unclear what means the European Commission has at its disposal to monitor and make public any
violations of fundamental rights in the EU.

1. Was the Commission aware or did have any suspicion of the instances of racist and inhuman
treatment in Spain, as described by Amnesty International?

How does the Commission monitor and report on violations of the fundamental rights enshrined in

2.
Article 6 of the EU Treaty?

3. What changes in current working methods will the Commission be introducing with the entry into
force of the Treaty of Nice and the possibility, provided for in Article 7, of reporting serious and
continuing violations by a Member State of Article 6 to the Council, possibly leading to a suspension of
the rights of the Member State concerned?