WRITTEN QUESTION E-0337/03 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Financial subsidy for Grundig AG.
Date: 2003-02-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bavaria, State aid, aid to undertakings, audiovisual industry, company in difficulties, industrial restructuring

C 11 E/82

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

If so, does the Commission think that cross-border cartels have been formed in breach of European
competition rules and that measures need to be taken in this sphere?

If so, what action does the Commission intend to take vis-à-vis the construction companies concerned?
What can be done to compensate the injured parties?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

The Commission is aware of cases of (alleged) fraud and price fixing in the construction market in the
Netherlands through the national competition authority (NMa) and the media.
It also heard of the
allegations that non-Dutch enterprises are involved in these practices on the Dutch market and that Dutch
enterprises are involved in foreign markets.

In cases of price fixing agreements that violate Article 81 of the EC Treaty either the Commission or
national authorities can treat the case. National authorities can also act upon national legislation, even
when trade between Member States is affected.

The NMa is investigating a number of these cases and keeps the Commission regularly informed of its
activities.

When the Commission has credible information on a cartel with an appreciable element of inter-Member
State trade involved, it will act upon this information or make sure a national authority will do so.

Community legislation does not foresee compensation for parties damaged by cartels. However, both
private parties and public parties can take civil legal action against perpetrators of price fixing on the basis
of national procedures. The Commission encourages parties to do so as it is another means of ensuring
adherence to Community competition rules.

(2004/C 11 E/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0337/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Financial subsidy for Grundig AG

The 14 December 2002 edition of ‘Europolitique’ mentions that the Commission has authorised the
Bavarian Government to put some EUR 40 million of subsidy into the German company Grundig AG.

The point is made that this subsidy’s sole objective is to allow the company to continue operating for six
months, during which it must reach a decision on its future, and present a plan for its restructuring or
liquidation.

It is also noted that Grundig AG was close to bankruptcy in August 2002.

Given that this is a company which owns factories in various EU countries, and specifically in Portugal,
and that it employs some 5 000 workers, can the Commission inform me as to the company’s current
financial situation and its future prospects?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2003)

The Commission approved rescue aid to the Grundig AG, Nürnberg, on 11 December 2002. The notified
aid, a 90 % guarantee for a EUR 45 million loan from the German State of Bavaria, was destined to allow
Grundig to continue activities during six months while deciding about the future of the company.

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/83

The Commission considered that the 90 % guarantee constituted State aid in the sense of Article 87(1) of
the EC Treaty and had to be assessed as ad hoc aid under Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty and the
Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty. Under these
Guidelines, the Commission approves rescue aid as one-off support to an ailing firm during the period
needed to devise a restructuring or a liquidation plan. The aid must consist of liquidity help at market
conditions and must be the strict minimum to keep the firm in business during a maximum period of six
months.

Since the rescue aid for Grundig fulfilled the conditions set out in these Guidelines, the Commission
authorised the guarantee for the period requested by Germany. At the same time, Germany committed to
notify a restructuring plan or liquidation plan to the Commission or proof that the loan has been
reimbursed, the latest six months after approval of the rescue aid. Until this notification, the Commission
does not have the information requested by the Honourable Member.

(2004/C 11 E/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0340/03

by Elmar Brok (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Aid C 67/2002 (formerly E 47/2001) (cid:1) state aid to manufacturers of grain spirit

Since their exit
from the spirit monopoly, commercial distilleries have ceased production. The
compensatory amounts paid by Germany for early exit from the monopoly are to be classified not as aid
but as compensation.

Why does the Commission nevertheless take the view that that these compensatory payments constitute
aid which distorts competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2003)

In the context of the investigation which it has launched following the start of the procedure relating to
the state aid granted to grain spirit distillers (farmers and industrial distillers) in Germany, the Commission
has raised the issue of whether the payments made to industrial distilleries by way of compensation for
their early exit from the monopoly can be classed as state aid incompatible with the common market.

As this matter is still under investigation, the Commission has not taken any decision so far regarding the
status or anticompetitive nature of the compensatory payments.

(2004/C 11 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0349/03

by Herman Vermeer (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 February 2003)

Subject: Possible conflict between sustainability policy in the terms of reference of producers’ organisations

and competition rules

(The NMA (Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit (cid:1) Netherlands Competition Authority) has imposed fines
on producers’ organisations in the shrimp fishing industry in the Netherlands (Case 2269) because of
mutual agreements in the framework of
trilateral cooperation with German and Danish producers’
organisations, for which the Commission granted subsidies in 2002, whereas the German and Danish
organisations have not been fined in their respective countries. This is the background to this Written
Question.)