WRITTEN QUESTION P-1645/02 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Casino de la Vallée, Saint-Vincent (Italy).
Date: 2002-06-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, Valle d'Aosta, aid to undertakings, application of EU law, control of State aid, gaming establishment, interpretation of the law, public sector, regional finances, regional government

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/147

(2002/C 309 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1645/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Subject: Casino de la Vallée, Saint-Vincent (Italy)

The Casino de la Vallée, in Saint-Vincent (Autonomous Region of the Valle d’Aosta, Italy), is one of the
is run by a ‘special
main gambling houses in Europe and the second most important
It
management’ arrangement established by the regional
law of 21 December 1993 and replacing the
previous private management. The Region, which plays a dominant role in the casino’s management
(appointment of senior executives, as well as control and supervision), has systematically provided the
establishment with funding by means of laws and measures passed by the Regional Government. The
amounts provided have grown exponentially over the years and have probably been drawn on relevant
budget lines, appearing as ad hoc expenses relating to surpluses. Moreover, the Region has apparently
made it impossible for the contract to be awarded to a third party, thereby preventing any form of private
management that would respect basic rules of financial management, efficiency and transparency.

in Italy.

The funding measures could be considered as State aids to an undertaking which has been in deficit ever
since it was established, aimed at systematically making up its losses without the slightest attempt to
improve productivity. Moreover, these interventions were not limited to a specific period, but have in fact
involved ever-increasing amounts and may therefore constitute violations of competition and free-market
rules, as well as the criteria laid down for companies in difficulty.

Will the Commission state:

(cid:1) whether it considers, on the basis of the above facts, that the regional law of the Valle d’Aosta is at

odds with the relevant Community directives?

(cid:1) whether it believes that a verification procedures should be opened vis-à-vis the regional authorities?

(cid:1) will it give its overall opinion on this situation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2002)

The Honourable Member raises a number of complex issues that would require an in-depth analysis of the
relevant pieces of legislation and of the financial relations between the Casino della Valle di Saint Vincent
and Regione Valle d’Aosta.

On the basis of the general information provided in the question, the Commission can only attempt to
formulate some preliminary and general remarks on this matter.

According to Article 295 of the EC Treaty, the Community shall respect the Member States’ rules on
property ownership. This means that the Commission cannot question the ownership of an undertaking,
whether the undertaking is owned by a public authority or by private subjects.

Therefore,
in this case, the Commission cannot conclude at this stage that the Legge Regionale of
21 December 1993 which attributes the property of the Casino to the Region, is at odds with Community
Law.

The question refers also to the circumstances that the Casino has received public funds from the Region
(finanziamenti ad hoc connessi ai resultati di gestione), even if it has always posted losses.

The neutrality principle enshrined also implies that the EC Treaty rules, and especially competition rules,
apply to any kind of undertaking, regardless of its ownership. A corollary of the neutrality principle is that
public authorities can intervene in the market so long as their behaviour substantially coincides with that
of a private investor operating in a market economy. This is the so called market economy investor
principle. If this principle is respected no State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty
might exist. It should also be added that the State aid rules of the EC Treaty only apply to aid insofar as it
affects trade between Member States.

C 309 E/148

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

In order to verify whether the interventions of the Region Valle D’Aosta in favour of the Casino comply
with the market economy investor principle the Commission will ask for the Italian authorities to inform it
about the details of such interventions.

(2002/C 309 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1663/02

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Directive 92/14/EEC and noisy ‘Chapter 2’ aeroplanes

(11 June 2002)

Under Article 2 of Directive 92/14/EEC (1) Member States must ensure that from 1 April 2002 aeroplanes
which are not equipped with hushkits, as referred to in Chapter 2 of Annex 16 to the ICAO (International
Civil Aviation Organisation) Convention, cannot operate at airports situated in their territory.

1.

Does the Commission know whether all the Member States are applying this provision?

Is the Commission aware of airports which are at present still authorising such planes to operate?

2.
Which airports are they?

3. What action will the Commission take against the Member States and the airports which in practice
are not applying the directive?

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 21.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

The Commission has been informed that there are some airports which are not complying fully with
Council Directive 92/14/EEC of 2 March 1992 on the limitation of the operation of aeroplanes covered by
Part II, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, second
edition (1988) (1). The Commission is currently examining this information. In particular, it appears that
the authorities in Greece have authorised some Boeing 737 model 200 aeroplanes to operate between
Athens and the island of Rhodes as of 1 April 2002. Consequently, on 17 July 2002, the Commission
decided to send a letter of formal notice to the Greek authorities for failure to comply with Article 2 of
Directive 92/14/EEC.

No airport is allowed to authorise flights with ‘Chapter 2’ aeroplanes. Exemptions may only be granted by
the Member States, and then only within the highly restrictive conditions described in Article 8 of Directive
92/14/EEC. This Article provides for decisions in individual cases according to the characteristics of the
specific flight, which excludes any possibility of airports benefiting from special treatment.

The Commission will continue to ask Member States to inform it of progress in the implementation of this
Directive in their respective territories. As in any other sphere, any failure to fulfil the obligations of the
national authorities could lead to infringement proceedings.

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

(2002/C 309 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1676/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2002)

Subject: The EU’s new flag

The Commission President, Romani Prodi, and the Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, commissioned
the Dutch architect, Rem Koolhaas, to redesign the European flag. Mr Koolhaas’s bar-code-style design of
coloured abstract lines has been widely published in newspapers across Europe.