WRITTEN QUESTION E-0204/03 by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission. State aid for the banking sector in the Czech Republic.
Date: 2003-02-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Czechia, State aid, accession to the European Union, bank, control of State aid, disclosure of information, report

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/21

Article 4 of Directive 90/220/EEC required Member States to ensure that their competent authority
organised inspection and other control measures, as appropriate, to ensure compliance with the Directive.
This is again, similarly reflected in Directive 2001/18/EC.

Consequently, it is the competent authorities of Member States who control site inspections, including any
monitoring, of GM crop trials and hold the relevant information.

In this context, Directive 2001/18/EC now requires, under Article 9(2) that ‘Member States shall make
available to the public information on all Part B releases of GMOs in their territory’.

(1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.
(2) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.

(2004/C 65 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0204/03

by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject: State aid for the banking sector in the Czech Republic

I have studied the European Commission report entitled ‘State Aid Scoreboard (cid:1) autumn 2002 update (cid:1)
Special edition on the candidate countries’ (cid:1) with great interest. In that connection, I welcome the
European Commission’s initiative in drawing up a report on state aid in the future EU Member States.
It represents a necessary step along the road to complete transparency, one which is of great significance
as regards accession.

However, the European Commission report makes in clear in various instances that the information which
it possesses consists solely of data supplied by the applicant countries themselves and is not, therefore, the
result of research carried out by the European Commission itself.

I should therefore be grateful if the Commission would supply me with additional information about the
following issues:

1. Does the Commission intend to verify the accuracy of the information supplied to it? If so, how will
this be done? For example, it came to my attention that the figures given in the ‘State Aid Scoreboard’
relating to the aid granted to Czech banks in 2000 (EUR 144 million) were considerably lower than
those given in publicly available sources in Prague. Such sources allege that state aid amounting to
several hundred million euros was granted to a small number of banks in 2000.

2. The Commission has not indicated whether, in its view, that aid was granted in compliance with the
EU legislation governing the granting of state aid currently in force. Is it, nevertheless, possible for the
state aid granted after 10 December 1994 to be deemed to constitute existing aid and to be included
in a list attached to the Accession Treaty (‘State Aid Scoreboard’, Section 1.2.5)?

3. What conclusions will the Commission draw if it is proved that the figures set out in the ‘State Aid

Scoreboard’ relating to the state aid granted to Czech banks are fundamentally inaccurate?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2003)

State Aid Scoreboard

1.
The Commission compiled the State Aid Scoreboard data on the basis of the figures provided by the
Czech authorities. It does not verify this information, as it does not verify the information from the current
Member States either. As far as possible the Commission tried to apply the same methodology as that used
for the existing Member States. However, as this was the first exercise of its kind, there were naturally

C 65 E/22

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

difficulties in obtaining all the necessary information to do this in a strictly comparable way for all
countries. As a result, there may be some areas where the level of State aid was under-valued.

Existing Aid List

2.
No Czech State aid measure with regard to banking was included in the list attached to the Accession
Treaty. The inclusion of aid measures granted by the Czech authorities to the existing aid list consists of
two phases: The first phase consisted of the establishment of a list of aid measures to be attached to the
Accession Treaty. A few banking measures had been notified for this list, however they did not qualify and
were therefore not included. The second phase covers measures submitted to the Commission between
1 January 2003 and the actual date of accession (the so-called ‘interim procedure’). This procedure covers
aid measures which, prior to the date of accession, have been assessed by the State aid monitoring
authority of the new Member State and found to be compatible with the acquis, and to which the
Commission does not raise an objection on the ground of serious doubts as to the compatibility of the
measure with the common market. Several aid measures to banking are currently under scrutiny of the
Czech competition authorities (OPEC). Once the OPEC will have assessed the measures, and if it raises no
objections, the Czech authorities may notify the granted aid to the Commission for inclusion in the
existing aid list. The Commission will consequently assess the aid, and only if the Commission does not
object to it on the grounds of serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market, it will be
regarded as existing aid.

The existing aid list exercise should be distinguished from the State Aid Scoreboard. The State Aid
Scoreboard is not intended as an assessment of compatibility with the acquis, but an information tool.

Currently, the Commission cannot draw the conclusion that the figures are fundamentally inaccurate,
in case figures prove to be

3.
since certain measures are still under scrutiny by the OPEC. However,
inaccurate, they will need to be updated in the next score board.

(2004/C 65 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0260/03

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject:

‘Compatible’ projects

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1):

(cid:1) the reason for strengthening cohesion policy (which is supported by means of the Structural Funds) is
to reduce disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness
of the least-favoured regions or islands;

(cid:1) decentralised implementation of Structural Fund operations by the Member States should provide
sufficient guarantees as to the details and quality of implementation and to results and the evaluation
thereof;

(cid:1) achievement of such objectives is ensured through the observance of certain principles (programming,
concentration, integration and additionality) which justify the existence of an EU cohesion policy.

Furthermore:

(cid:1) the first year in which the rule on automatic decommitment applied ended on 31 December 2002;

(cid:1) in the case of Italy, only 70-80 % of the expenditure certifications submitted by the regions by the

above date relate to so-called ‘support’ projects (i.e. ones consistent with the programmes).

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?

(cid:1) For each Italian Objective 1 programme and for each of the Structural Funds, what was the exact
amount of the expenditure certified to the Commission in respect of projects which were not selected
on the basis of a call launched in connection with a RGP or a NGP, and will the expenditure relating
to such projects nonetheless be reimbursed under the ERDF, the ESF, the EAGGF and the FIFG?