WRITTEN QUESTION E-3111/02 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. State aids to the French electricity sector.
Date: 2002-10-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, State aid, control of State aid, electrical industry, guarantee, infringement procedure (EU), liberalisation of the market, national implementing measure, public sector, tax relief

C 280 E/12

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

(2003/C 280 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2870/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 October 2002)

Subject: Economic assumptions

Is the Commission satisfied that the economic assumptions used in the preparation of Member State

1.
budgets and stability programmes are of a uniformly realistic nature?

2. What measures might be taken to improve the realism of official forecasting assumptions?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2002)

Each year Member States provide new or updated Stability and Convergence programmes. These
programmes are drawn up under the full responsibility of the Member State concerned. The programme
is examined by the Council based on assessments of the Commission and the Economic and Financial
Committee.

the economic assumptions on which the
In its assessment
programme is based, predominantly against its own forecast. To the extent that biases in the economic
scenarios are identified, the Commission draws attention to the implications for the budgetary strategy.

the Commission judges the realism of

Several measures have been taken to induce Member States to base their programmes on as realistic and
transparent assumptions as possible. In particular the ‘Code of conduct’ on the content and format of
stability and convergence programmes specifies the information that Member States are expected to
provide to facilitate the assessment of the programme. To make the projections more uniform, the Code
also proscribes the use of commonly agreed assumptions for the extra-Union variables. These should be
used by Member States when drafting their central scenario or for sensitivity analysis. In any case, Member
States should stand ready to explain and justify the chosen scenario should the Commission draw attention
to divergences from the Commission forecast. In addition, a further step has been taken by agreeing at
Union level on a new production function method to calculate potential output. This will serve as another,
commonly agreed reference, against which country specific growth assumptions can be judged effectively
and which will serve to calculate cyclically adjusted budget balances.

(2003/C 280 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3111/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2002)

Subject: State aids to the French electricity sector

Can the Commission confirm that Commissioner Monti has recently launched an inquiry into the
unlimited state guarantees given by the French Government to the state-owned energy utility Electricité de
France (EdF)? Does
the utility has benefited from approximately
EUR 900 million in unlawful tax breaks, and what is the legal position regarding France’s failure to open
up its electricity sector?

the Commission believe that

Commissioner Monti was reported in the press as saying ‘The Commission has decided to wind up a
situation which creates a distortion of competition (…), especially where EdF is expanding into other
countries.’ If the Commission believes that France is currently in breach of its obligations to liberalise its
electricity sector, will it prohibit further acquisitions by EdF?

Finally, the French Government is reported to have described the Commission’s actions as ‘a provocation.’
If the Commission decides to issue a reasoned opinion, does it have the option of publishing it and
including the responses of the French Government so that an open and informed debate on the issue may
take place with full disclosure of the relevant facts?

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/13

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2002)

On 16 October 2002 the Commission has decided to propose appropriate measures under Article 88(1) of
the EC Treaty and to initiate a formal investigation under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with respect to a
series of State aid measures in favour of Electricité de France (EDF). In particular, the Commission has
proposed to the French Government to remove the unlimited State guarantee that EDF enjoys under the
so-called EPIC status (Etablissement public à caractère industriel et commercial) and to charge a premium
for not yet redeemed bonds issued by EDF with an explicit State guarantee. Under the formal investigation,
the Commission has also questioned the compatibility with the common market of a tax-relief from which
EDF has apparently benefited as a result of accounting adjustments recorded in 1997. According to the
French authorities the advantage in tax-relief terms could be estimated at approximately EUR 900 million.

The Commission has asked the French Government to accept the proposal of appropriate measures and to
inform the Commission, within one month from the date of the decision, of the measures it intends to
adopt to comply with it. As regards the formal investigation, the Commission has invited the French
Government to submit, within one month too, its comments on the possible incompatibility of the tax
advantage.

invite third interested parties to present their comments to the Commission by
The Commission will
means of the publication in the Official Journal of the letter by which the Commission informed the
French Government of its decision. Publication will take place after the French authorities confirm to the
Commission that there is no confidential information in the decision. According to the provisions on the
formal investigation set out in Articles 6 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March
1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 88 of the EC Treaty (1), the comments from
the French Government will be published when the Commission adopts its final decision on the case.

Finally, it should be noted that, as regards the transposal into French law of Directive 96/92/EC of the
Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in
electricity (2), the Commission has no reason to believe that such transposal is not in line with the said
Directive.

(1) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.
(2) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.

(2003/C 280 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3255/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Pressure on greenfield sites because of EU top-up subsidies rules

The EU has banned ‘top-up’ subsidies which might allow housing on so-called ‘brownfield’ sites to be
profitable. This is leading to enormous pressure on greenfield sites in Great Britain. Do practical
impact on the way towns and cities can be improved and
considerations surrounding the very real
developed not make a mockery of ideas of EU rulings in this case? Would the Commission please
comment on the specific case of the Manningham Mills regeneration project in Bradford? A fine nineteenth
century building will remain dilapidated because the Commission has failed to comprehend the nature of
gap funding system (where public money can make up the difference between the cost of reclamation and
development and the project’s final value) as opposed to state aid.