WRITTEN QUESTION E-3579/02 by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission. State aid for professional football clubs.
Date: 2002-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, competition law, competition policy, control of State aid, professional sport, sports body

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/123

entering Mr Jenacolas on the register of publicists appears irregular to say the least, given that Article 35 of
Law 69/9063 requires those entered to have worked as publicists for at least two years, evidenced by a
minimum number of published and paid articles, and certified by a statement by the editor-in-chief of the
Italian publication in which the articles appeared.

Does the Commission not consider that Article 46 of Law 69 of 3 February 1963 is incompatible with
Article 39 of the EC Treaty, which provides for the free movement of workers within the Community?

Supplementary answer
given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2003)

On 16 January 2003, the Commission sent a letter to the Italian authorities asking for clarification of how
the legislation in question works, particularly the requirement that journalists be entered on a professional
register and the conditions of eligibility applying to journalists from the EU in particular.

The Commission has not yet received a reply from the Italian authorities.

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the case has been registered as a
suspected infringement of Community law.

(2003/C 192 E/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3579/02

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 December 2002)

Subject: State aid for professional football clubs

Earlier this year the Commission received a letter from the Netherlands Ministry of the Interior suggesting
that the proposed government support for professional football clubs should not be regarded as state aid.
In its reply, the European Commission made it clear that professional football clubs are regarded as
undertakings subject to the same rules governing state aid as any other business.

Recently it emerged that, following a formal complaint, the European Commission was opening an
investigation into the alleged provision of support by the Netherlands municipality Alkmaar to the local
professional football club, AZ Alkmaar. The European Commission’s reply may also point to the opening
of a broader investigation into state aid arrangements in the Netherlands as a whole. In my view, however,
professional football clubs in other EU Member States also receive state aid.

Does the Commission agree that the provision of state aid to professional football clubs certainly

1.
takes place on a Europe-wide basis?

If the answer is no, can the Commission substantiate its standpoint?

If the answer if yes, what steps does the Commission plan to take to deal with such practices in the future?

2.
In the light of the principle of equality before the law in Europe, is the Commission prepared to
extend the investigation beyond the Netherlands to take in Europe as a whole, with a view to obtaining
comprehensive information which can serve as the basis for properly thought-out policy decisions in this
area?

C 192 E/124

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The Commission has received a complaint alleging that the City of Alkmaar has granted aid to both a
property development company and the football club AZ Alkmaar. The Commission has requested the
Dutch authorities to provide information on the alleged measures but has not opened any formal
investigation so far.

Given the complex issues raised in these cases, by reason of the aid types involved and the objectives
pursued, it is not possible to take a general position on whether aid within the meaning of Article 87 of
the EC Treaty has been granted nor whether the aid is compatible or not. This has to be assessed on a case
by case basis.

As regards the scope of the investigation, it is necessary to specify that at this very moment no general
inquiry on aid possibly granted in the Netherlands takes place. So, far the Commission has only made a
preliminary assessment of
the complaint. The Commission has no intentions to launch a general
investigation throughout the whole of the Union.

(2003/C 192 E/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3602/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2002)

Subject: New compensation fund for pollution victims

On 14 November 2002, 24 hours after the ‘Prestige’ disaster, the Commission issued a press release
entitled: ‘After the Erika disaster, the European Union is at the forefront of maritime safety’.

This press release, written throughout in the same self-congratulatory register as the title, goes so far as to
declare that ‘the Commission has proposed that a fund for the compensation of oil pollution damage be
set up, with a global ceiling of EUR 1 billion, to compensate victims where the current ceilings of
EUR 200 million are exceeded’.

Can the Commission supply the text of this proposal? Can it provide a legal reference for the ‘current
ceilings’? Is it referring to its right of budgetary initiative in the context of the EU institutions, or to a
proposal made at international level?

Does the Commission not believe that it would be desirable to operate on the basis of more greater
responsibility and informational rigour, and less propaganda?

(2003/C 192 E/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3603/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2002)

Subject:

‘The EU in the forefront of maritime safety’

to the existence
In its communication COM(2002) 539 (Annex 2, 1.6),
of
‘a contingency (response) plan with a 24-hour alert system’, defined in 2000 in the context
of ‘a Community framework (…) set up to support Member States’ efforts in responding to accidental
and also deliberate marine pollution’.

the Commission refers

Can the Commission explain how it was possible for it, despite the existence of this system, to issue, on
the day after the disaster, a press release significantly entitled ‘The European Union is at the forefront of
maritime safety’, in which, rather than referring to the ‘Prestige’, it continued to speak of the sinking of the
‘Erika’, which happened three years ago?