WRITTEN QUESTION E-3777/02 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Pirelli production.
Date: 2002-12-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, State aid, United Kingdom, application of EU law, control of State aid, investment aid, regional aid, transfer of businesses

C 280 E/26

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

4. Why are persons from outside the EU being asked to pay for a travel document which, it is true,
is important in terms of protecting the EU against an influx of criminals and profiteers, but is regarded by
them as an impediment to their right, acquired no so long ago, to unrestricted internal travel? Is not the
more obvious thing to do to have the cost of this arrangement borne in full by the EU?

5.
At least in respect of relatives, pensioners and unemployed persons, does the Commission see scope
for reducing the payment to the level applicable to people living in Kaliningrad, or lower, without running
the risk that criminals and profiteers will have free access to EU territory?

Source: 4 December 2002 edition of the Dutch newspaper ‘De Volkskrant’

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

1. to 5.
As confirmed by the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) on 22 October
2002 and the Brussels European Council on 24 October 2002, the Union will introduce the necessary
legislation to establish by 1 July 2003 a Facilitated Transit Document (FTD) and Facilitated Rail Transit
(FRTD) scheme to apply for the transit of all Russian citizens between Kaliningrad and other parts of
Russia by land.

The FTD will be valid for direct transit by all means of transport by land from one third country to the
same third country within a limited period of time. The FRTD will be valid for a single return journey by
train.

In line with the Joint Statement adopted at the Union/Russia Summit on 11 November 2002, both the
FTD and the FRTD will be issued free of charge or at a very low cost to all eligible Russian citizens.

The Joint Statement further noted that the Republic of Lithuania has agreed to accept Russian internal
passports as a basis for issuing both types of FTD until 31 December 2004.

In addition, Lithuania and Russia signed on 30 December 2002 an intergovernmental agreement on
mutual travel of citizens, which provides for the obligation to be in possession of a visa for entry, transit
and stay in the other State. As regards the Kaliningrad Oblast and its residents, the visa regime will enter
into force on 1 July 2003, and visas will be provided free of charge on a reciprocal basis. In particular,
multiple one-year visas will be issued free of charge to Kaliningrad residents without the need for an
invitation. As a general rule for all Russian and Lithuanian citizens, consular fees for issuing visas are not
charged at all for several categories of travellers, including persons above the age of 60 years and children
under the age of 16.

(2003/C 280 E/024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3777/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Subject: Pirelli production

Is the Commission able to provide assurances that the decision by Pirelli to move fibre optic production
from its plant in Hampshire to Italy is in full compliance with EU rules on state aid?

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/27

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2003)

On 2 October 2002 the Commission approved planned aid of EUR 74,5 million for the firm Fibre Ottiche
Sud in respect of a EUR 167,4 million investment project at Battipaglia, Campania, an assisted region in
southern Italy. The project should create 311 direct jobs and 108 indirect jobs. The Commission took its
decision under the rules laid down in the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment
projects (1).

The Commission’s general objective in implementing the multisectoral framework is to limit aid for large-
scale projects in such a way as to avoid as much as possible adverse effects on competition while at the
same time maintaining the attraction of the assisted area. In the case under consideration, the maximum
admissible aid intensity was 28 % net grant equivalent (corresponding to the investment’s gross intensity
(44,5 %), discounted and less taxes).

The Commission is not aware that Pirelli’s investment constitutes a transfer of production from the United
Kingdom to Italy. It should also be pointed out that the investment project involves the extension of an
existing fibre optic plant.

(1) OJ C 107, 7.4.1998.

(2003/C 280 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3782/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Combination of parliamentary democracy with the right to decentralised decisions and diversity

within a new institutional structure of the EU

Does the Commission agree that there is a need to defend, vis-à-vis the framework for a new
1.
administrative structure devised by the Convention on the Future of Europe which concentrates power in
the combined national governments, Heads of Government and a President appointed from among them, a
model of parliamentary democracy such as exists in the Member States with the usual distribution between
preparation and implementation by a day-to-day administration together with a broad decision-making
process on guidelines by means of a Parliament elected by all those eligible to vote?

2. Why, on 5 December 2002, in his justified attempt to defend parliamentary democracy against a
regression into previous authoritarian administrative forms, did the President of the Commission give the
impression that he was coupling such defence with further centralisation and harmonisation within the EU
instead of the common resolution of our large-scale and cross-border environmental, humans rights,
transfrontier work, transport and tax haven problems?

3.
Is the President aware that, by causing the impression referred to in question 2, he was making the
less democratic alternative of a ‘Europe of governments of states’ unnecessarily attractive for those who,
within the collectivity of Europe, are attached to the preservation of scope for decision-making at the
lowest possible level and the right to diversity of the participating nations?

4.
Apart from his personal preferences, does the President feel that a new institutional structure is
possible in which parliamentary democracy, the protection of national parliaments and the right to
diversity go hand-in-hand with decentralised decision-making on the basis of subsidiarity or a ‘catalogue of
competences’ for the allocation of tasks between the EU and the Member States?