WRITTEN QUESTION E-2975/02 by Pere Esteve (ELDR)and Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Interpretation of Article 87 of the EC Treaty with regard to the planning agreement involving Real Madrid football club and the free competitive market.
Date: 2002-10-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Madrid, Spain, State aid, application of EU law, case-law (EU), competition law, control of State aid, interpretation of the law, restriction on competition, sports body, sports facilities, town-planning scheme

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/57

In the context of these instruments the Commission is encouraging the Member States to develop an
integrated approach coordinating forest management with spatial development planning in order to:

(cid:1) make forests useful to the whole population and compatible with their real needs,

(cid:1) ensure sustainable multifunctional forest management based on science and technology that takes
proper account of the links between silviculture and more complex problems: erosion, flooding,
biodiversity loss etc.,

(cid:1) bring together at regional and local level all those with an interest in Mediterranean forests, including
public and private owners,
local authorities, managers of protected zones and non-governmental
organisations so that they can work together and develop a comprehensive overview of what is
involved in management and protection of our forest heritage.

The integrated and decentralised approach that the Community’s regional and rural policies take to
fostering protection and sustainable development of the Mediterranean zones does not see the problems as
purely silvicultural, environmental or administrative but as needing to be tackled in the wider context of
regional development and the lives of local people, producers, users and other interested parties.

(1) OJ C 56, 26.2.1999.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1997.
(3) OJ L 242, 10.9.2002.
(4) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(5) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(6) OJ L 232, 29.8.2002.

(2003/C 161 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2975/02

by Pere Esteve (ELDR)
and Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Interpretation of Article 87 of the EC Treaty with regard to the planning agreement involving Real

Madrid football club and the free competitive market

From the Commission’s answer to Written Question P-2491/02 (1) on the planning agreement involving
Real Madrid football club and the free competitive market the questioners understand the following:

1.

2.

although the Commission understands that there is insufficient reason to investigate the matter, it
states that the action of the authorities has favoured Real Madrid;

the Commission considers that the advantage in question is not of the kind referred to in Article 87 of
the EC Treaty, since it does not entail the direct or indirect granting of State resources, and bases this
argument on the judgment of 13 March 2001, in Case C-379/98, Preussen Elektra AG v. Schleswag
AG, ECR I-02099.

In this connection the questioners understand the following:

(cid:1) that the conjunction ‘or’ in Article 87 of the EC Treaty unequivocally implies the inclusion of aid
which is not State funding and that that this distinction is maintained clearly and literally in Article 88
of the EC Treaty;

(cid:1) that the conjunction ‘or’ in itself signifies an alternative and hence we are talking about two concepts
‘aid granted by a Member State’ and aid granted

which are not equivalent or equal, but separate:
‘through State resources’, both of them covered by the relevant articles.

Taking this argument into account, can the Commission explain the distinction made by the legislator
between these two kinds of aid? To what does aid granted by a Member State other than aid in the form of
State resources refer?

C 161 E/58

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Can the Commission say why, despite recognising that the reclassification confers an advantage on Real
Madrid, it does not define it as aid?

Can the Commission investigate this matter more thoroughly, since it has information at its disposal which
is not available to the questioners?

(1) OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 86.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

The case-law of the Court of Justice shows that only advantages granted directly or indirectly through state
resources are to be considered aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty.

The Court states in the aforementioned Preussen Elektra-case that the distinction made in Article 87
between ‘aid granted by a Member State’ and aid granted ‘through state resources’ does not signify that all
advantages granted by a state, whether financed through state resources or not, constitute aid. The
distinction is intended merely to bring within that definition both advantages, which are granted directly
by the State and those, granted by a public or private body designated or established by the State (1).

As stated in the answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question P-2491/02, in the case of Real
Madrid, the city council of Madrid and the community of Madrid have changed the town-planning
agreement, which appears to confer an advantage but does not appear to involve a transfer of state
resources. The measure therefore does not constitute aid, as has also been explained in the previous
answer.

The mere fact that according to the information available, the measure appears not to involve a transfer of
state resources and therefore not to constitute aid, according to the Court ’s interpretation of article 87, is
for the Commission sufficient ground not to investigate the measure.

Finally, with regard to the information available,
its disposal both public
information on the case as well as the elements submitted by the Honourable Members in these questions.
Consequently, the Commission does not have information at its disposal that is not available to the
Honourable Members.

the Commission has at

(1) Case C-379/98, Preussen Elektra AG v. Schleswag AG, 13 March 2001, ECR I-02099, paragraph 58.

(2003/C 161 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2989/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Measures to reduce fisheries accidents

Paragraph 10 of the EP’s resolution of 5 April 2001 on Fisheries: safety and causes of accidents (1) ‘calls for
the introduction of certification and practical tests as appropriate for deck officers, engineers and skippers
on small fishing vessels that currently do not require Certificates of Competency in those Member States
where this is not currently required’.

Paragraph 11 ‘calls for the enactment of European Community and Member State standards to introduce
mandatory basic safety training for all crewmembers on EU fishing vessels and to ensure the revalidation
of safety training at regular intervals in those Member States where this is not currently required’.

Paragraph 15 ‘calls on the Commission to devise strategies to ensure the overall standard of fisheries
training qualifications is enhanced in the interest of vessel and occupational health and safety and to fast-
track the harmonising of qualifications between the fishing industry and merchant marine’.