WRITTEN QUESTION E-3255/02 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Pressure on greenfield sites because of EU top-up subsidies rules.
Date: 2002-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, housing need, industrial plot, property development, urban renewal, urbanisation

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.

C 280 E/14

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

The Commission has, at several occasions and by virtue of several decisions in the past, underlined and
accentuated the importance of the improvement of the physical environment, the provision of affordable
housing, as well as the regeneration of urban areas in the current Member States and especially in the
United Kingdom (UK) (Scotland and England) (1).

By doing so, the Commission has always assessed the existence of state aid as well as the compatibility of
the proposed measures with the provisions of the EC Treaty within the framework of the policy objectives
set by the Member States. This is particularly reflected by the fact that the regeneration and land
development measures notified to the Commission by the UK authorities encompass the redevelopment of
brownfield sites as well as the supply of additional housing on greenfield sites in disadvantaged regions of
the UK.

Furthermore, the Commission has acknowledged through its decisions that the gap-funding instrument as
applied by the UK authorities can serve as a valuable approach in tackling the needs for regeneration and
the accomplishment of social policy objectives as defined by the Member States. In the case of gap funding
granted to developers for the provision of affordable housing, the Commission has stated that, whereas
direct government intervention in favour of individuals in order to allow them to buy more affordable
housing does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty, the fact that the gap-
funding instrument delivers incentives to developers can be viewed as favouring certain undertakings and
can constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 87. However, the Commission has also pointed out
that these measures can be compatible with the common market.

The Manningham Mills regeneration project mentioned by the Honourable Member is in the area eligible
for support under the 2000-2006 Objective 2 Programme for Yorkshire and Humber.

The programme has five strategic objectives:

1. To stimulate a stronger business dynamism by assisting in the creation and survival of more and better

business start-ups;

2. To improve the competitive performance of existing businesses by increasing the value-added of goods

and services produced and by increasing sales and turnover;

3. To reduce levels of deprivation in the parts of the region most excluded from economic activity by

using targeted, local community economic development initiatives as a key regeneration tool;

4. To increase business investment and economic growth by maximising the competitive edge of the

objective 2 region’s locational assets;

5. To enhance the achievement and sustainability of these aims by underpinning them all with excellent

skills and human resource actions.

The various types of activities that are supported in the programme to underpin the above strategic
objectives are described in the Programme Complement Document. Support for housing projects is not
strategically aligned with any of these objectives and activities and thus housing projects are ineligible for
support under the Objective 2 Programme.

As a derelict but listed building, Manningham Mills has been the subject of much activity in the region to
find a continued, constructive use for it. It is understood that Yorkshire Forward is working with Urban
Splash to rescue part of the complex for loft/housing. As already explained this type of project would not
be eligible for European support. The Managing Authority for the programme (Yorkshire and Humber
Government Office) are however, currently examining the possibility of co-financing a GBP 600 000
feasibility study on the prospects for using part of the Manningham Mills complex for community space
and conversion for commercial use. They also expect a bid early 2003 for a GBP 6 million project to
develop commercial space within Manningham Mills. As these are in line with the strategic objectives for
the programme, they may well be co-funded under the programme.

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/15

the Yorkshire and Humber region to regenerate such
The Commission endorses the initiative of
‘brownfield’ sites like Manningham Mills. While housing projects are not eligible for support, it is clear
that there are other projects coming forward that would be eligible for European funding support.
The Commission is convinced that some of these will be successful and thus enable the building to be used
in a manner that will create employment and wealth in line with the objectives of the programme.

(1) See, among others, the Commission decisions on the cases N 497/2001 ‘Grants for Owner Occupation (Scotland)’,
for Regeneration

N 680/2001 ‘Property Support Scheme (Scotland)’ and N 230/2002 ‘Partnership Support
(England)’.

(2003/C 280 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3352/02

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: EC Petition 566/2000

The Commission claimed (letter of 19.6.2002) that no effective action could be taken under the EC/
Norway Agreement of 1973. Article 27(2.3) states that the Contracting Parties must provide the Joint
Committee details of any Article 23 breach with all information and a decision made within three months.
Was this done by the EC as a Contracting Party, what was the result, and if it was not done, why was it
not done?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

The letter of 19 June 2002 to which the Honourable Member refers sets out the eventual outcomes of
submitting a competition case involving a Norwegian company to the European Economic Community-
Norway Joint Committee under the European Economic Community-Norway Free Trade Agreement of
1973.

However, Article 27 of the said Agreement to which the Honourable Member also refers only provided for
a right for either Contracting Party to refer the matter to the Joint Committee. In the case which is the
subject of EC Petition 566/2000 and of
the question asked by the Honourable Member the facts
established by the Commission did not indicate any violation of Articles 85 and 86 of the then EEC Treaty
and did not call for a reference of the matter under Article 27.

(2003/C 280 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3473/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: The Commission’s new accounting officer

The Commission appointed Mr Marc Oostens as its new accounting officer with effect from 1 September
2002.

Can the Commission forward to me a copy of its Decision appointing Mr Oostens?

Can it say from how many candidates Mr Oostens was selected and whether it
Commission officials were given the opportunity of applying for this post?

is true that only

After Mr Oosten’s appointment, when was the interim statement of account drawn up, as required by
Article 18 of the Regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the
Financial Regulation?

What was the date of the interim statement of account?