WRITTEN QUESTION E-2256/02 by María Sornosa Martínez(PSE) to the Commission. Aid for solar photovoltaic and thermal energy in Spain.
Date: 2002-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Spain, State aid, aid system, energy policy, energy production, renewable energy, solar energy, thermal energy

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/5

in particular products identical to those produced in the Azores, such as sugar, milk and meat, provided
that
including that specified in
Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001.

these products are not re-exported, with a number of exceptions,

According to this exception the re-export prohibition ‘shall not apply to trade flows between the Azores
and Madeira’.

By virtue of this provision products are being sold on the Azorean market at unbeatable prices after being
imported from the Autonomous Region of Madeira under the terms of
the Regulation. Can the
Commission therefore say whether it had this in mind when it promoted the amendment to Article 3(5) of
the Poseima Regulation?

If this was not the aim, does it not consider it should explain what its aim was, and prevent unfair
in accordance with its powers to draw up
competition with agricultural products from the Azores,
implementing regulations?

Does the Commission not consider that using the Poseima programme to prejudice the position of the
Autonomous Region of the Azores compared with what it should be if the general provisions of the
Treaty were applied directly is contrary to the spirit and the letter of Article 299(2)?

(1) OJ L 198, 21.7.2001, p. 26.

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001 of 28 June 2001 introducing specific measures for certain
agricultural products for the Azores and Madeira and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 (Poseima) (1)
exempts trade between the Azores and Madeira from the prohibition on re-exporting or re-dispatching
products supplied to either of these regions under the specific supply arrangements (SSA) laid down in that
Regulation.

This provision (2) was introduced by the Council at Portugal’s request in order to allow SSA products to be
traded between the Azores and Madeira.

The Commission’s information is that small quantities of these, including 50 tonnes of white sugar, were
re-dispatched to the Azores from Madeira in June 2002.

The Commission is closely watching these new trade flows and in the light of Article 229(2) of the
EC Treaty and Regulation (EC) No 1453/2001 will adopt any measures needed to ensure respect for the
Council’s intentions and safeguard local production in the outermost regions.

(1) OJ L 198, 21.7.2001.
(2) Not included in the Regulation as proposed by the Commission (cid:1) OJ C 96 E, 27.3.2001.

(2003/C 222 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2256/02

by María Sornosa Martínez(PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Aid for solar photovoltaic and thermal energy in Spain

(24 July 2002)

As part of the Plan de Fomento de Energías Renovables (Plan for the Promotion of Renewable Energy
Sources), the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology recently published two decisions laying down
the rules governing the granting of support aid for solar photovoltaic and thermal energy and inviting
applications for such aid (Spanish Official Journal No 74).

C 222 E/6

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Point 7 of the section ‘Eligible Projects’ contains a clause stating that no applications will be considered in
the case of investment in installations that harness solar power for heat or electricity when this investment
is a consequence of obligations laid down in laws or regulations emanating from national or European
public administrations.

However, this clause might be discriminatory in cases where, for example, a local council wants to
implement its own local Agenda 21 and issues an order to encourage the setting-up of solar power
facilities. In this scenario, the two decisions issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology would
discriminate against potential promoters of clean energy facilities, who would not be eligible for aid. It
would therefore seem that there is a contradiction between something that the European Union is
promoting and has approved and what is being applied in a Member State, in this case Spain.

It should be borne in mind that:

(cid:1) both the decisions of the Spanish Ministry draw on the guidelines set out in the Renewable Energy

White Paper;

(cid:1) in its Sixth Framework Programme,

the European Union firmly emphasised the promotion of

alternative energies as a means of achieving sustainable development;

(cid:1) the European Union currently has a solid support framework for promoting energies of this type

(Altener, SAVE, the Intelligent Energy for Europe programme, etc.);

(cid:1) the Member States of the European Union have shown their willingness to meet the commitments set

out in the Kyoto Protocol, starting with their ratification of the Protocol en bloc.

Does the Commission not feel that the clause contained in the two Spanish decisions on solar energy is in
clear conflict with the above points, which currently define European policy in the field of renewable
energies?

In what way does the Commission consider that the above-mentioned exclusion clause might hinder the
granting of Community aid in the context of ‘laws or regulations emanating from European adminis-
trations’?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for drawing its attention to the recently published
decisions of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology laying down the rules governing the granting
of support aid for solar photovoltaic and thermal energy.

The Commission is currently not in a position to take a formal opinion whether the recent Spanish
legislation leads to discrimination relevant to European law on the basis of the information cited by the
Honourable Member. The Commission will contact the Spanish authorities for a clarification of this issue.

(2003/C 222 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2450/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 August 2002)

Subject: Rapid wear and tear of euro notes as result of savings in paper and coating

1.
Can the Commission confirm that the present euro notes become creased and torn remarkably
quickly and that because of wear and tear it is more difficult to detect whether the tattered notes are
forgeries and that, as a result, the notes have to be replaced sooner and more often than those of the
former currencies of the Member States?