WRITTEN QUESTION P-1680/02 by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission. Compatibility of the special wages guarantee fund (CIGS) with Community law on State aids for companies and employment.
Date: 2002-06-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, State aid, aid to undertakings, competition, employer, employment aid, equal treatment, financial solvency, pay, social security

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/79

(2003/C 92 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1680/02

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(6 June 2002)

Subject: Compatibility of the special wages guarantee fund (CIGS) with Community law on State aids for

companies and employment

The special wages guarantee fund (CIGS) is officially intended to guarantee the wages of workers on
permanent contracts at specific types of companies, at times when production is shut down or cut back as
a result of reorganisation, restructuring, conversion, financial difficulties or bankruptcy.

Between January 1997 and February 2002 a total of approximately EUR 120 billion (calculated year-by-
year on the basis of currency appreciation statistics supplied by Italy’s national statistical institute, ISTAT),
representing 6 372 929 914 man-hours has been paid out by the CIGS.

CIGS funding is granted on the basis of discretionary administrative decisions, which goes against the
Commission guidelines which provide for the automatic granting of such aid.

Only workers from specific types of companies are eligible for CIGS funding, while the Commission
guidelines provide for universal access to this type of measure.

The statistics and studies supplied by ISTAT and the CNR show that CIGS use bears little relation to
economic trends and benefits large companies only, despite the fact that small companies are also obliged
to contribute to it, which means that the latter are placed at a severe competitive disadvantage with respect
to the former.

The amount referred to in paragraph 2 above is clearly large enough to have an effect on trade between
the EU Member States and to distort or threaten to distort competition, given that, in the cases referred to
in paragraph 1, the CIGS enables beneficiary companies to offload their labour costs.

The Italian Government recently stated its intention to pour an additional EUR 5 billion into schemes to
cushion the impact of unemployment, the foremost among which has traditionally been the CIGS.

Given the above, does the Commission consider the CIGS to be compatible with Article 87 of the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2002)

Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (1) aims to
provide a minimum degree of protection for employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer.
To this end, it obliges the Member States to establish a body which guarantees payment of the outstanding
claims of the employees concerned.

The CIG (Cassa integrazione guadagni) fulfils this function in Italy, although its operation goes beyond that
required by the Directive.

The Commission has not taken a view on the compatibility with Article 87 of the EC Treaty of the CIGS,
which is the special wage compensation fund of the CIG. The CIGS has not been notified under
Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty. However, the Commission has studied the area of compatibility with
competition rules of short-time work and temporary layoff schemes in Member States,
in particular
through research commissioned in 1996.

C 92 E/80

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Measures to assist individuals the purpose or effect of which is not to favour certain undertakings or the
production of certain goods do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC
Treaty. Where, however, measures benefit enterprises selectively, whether through discretionary granting,
or by applying only to certain sectors, only in certain geographical regions or only to firms of a certain
size, state aid may be involved. The compatibility of any such aid would need to be assessed against
paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 87 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, Directive as last amended by the 1994 Act of Accession.

(2003/C 92 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1708/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 June 2002)

Subject: Kinnock clears way for Currie to join BNFL

In the European Voice (16-22 May 2002) a spokesperson for Neil Kinnock claimed clearance was given to
former Environment Director-General Jim Currie to join the board of BNFL as his role was ‘independent
and non-executive’, as Currie pledged not to divulge any confidential information gained while in EU
office.

How does Neil Kinnock propose to enforce this commitment? How can the Commission know what is
being said by Jim Currie at confidential board meetings? Can the Commission set out the reasons why it is
acceptable that Jim Currie joins BNFL, explain its statement that his role will be independent, and give the
basis for the assertion he will not divulge information gained at the Commission.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2002)

For a detailed response to the Honourable Member’s third question, the Commission would refer the
Honourable Member to the answers given to written questions E- 1466/02 (1) and E-1605/02 from
Mr Chris Davies (2).

In reply to the Honourable Member’s other questions:

(cid:1) Mr Currie has specifically committed himself to respect the obligations required by the Commission.
The Commission has assessed the risks of possible conflicts of interest arising in this specific context
and has asked Mr Currie to strictly respect the rules set down in the Staff Regulation. Mr Currie has
committed himself to fully respect his obligations and the Commission has no reasons to believe that
this might not be the case.

(cid:1) However, the Honourable Member will be aware that any proof to the contrary would lead to a
disciplinary procedure against an official or former official who was in breach of the rules set down in
the Staff Regulations.

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 110.
(2) See page 69.