WRITTEN QUESTION E-0361/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Holding company called Newco set up by Rome City Council — suspected infringement of competition rules.
Date: 2003-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Latium, advertising, competition law, economic concentration, local government, personal property, provision of services, public limited company, real property, undisclosed partnership

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/51

(2003/C 280 E/052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0358/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Council

(12 February 2003)

Subject: Iraq

Were the Presidency, the High Representative and the Prime Ministers of all existing and candidate states
consulted or even informed before the publication on 30 January of the letter from eight European leaders
calling on Europe to rally behind the US over Iraq? If not, why not?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the statement made on this subject by the Presidency,
on behalf of the Council, at the plenary part-session in Strasbourg in March 2003.

(2003/C 280 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0361/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject: Holding company called ‘Newco’ set up by Rome City Council (cid:1) suspected infringement of

competition rules

In September 2002 Rome City Council drew up a draft decision aimed at setting up a limited company to
be responsible for the unified management of all the companies in which the Council has shares. The
transaction was supposed to be completed by the transfer of all the shares in the 83 companies controlled
by the Council to the new company, 97 % of the shares in which would be held by the City Council.

Since the purpose of the new company is to manage the Council’s moveable and immovable property and
provide publicity services,
the transaction described above raises a number of doubts as regards
compliance with rules on competition and the concentration of companies.

The new holding would, as a result of the transfer from the Council, have a significant holding in all the
companies which currently carry out public services on behalf of Rome City Council, but the company
itself states in its statutes, that its purpose is to ‘provide services to Rome City Council and the companies
controlled by it’.

The remaining 3 % would be held by the company ‘Risorse per Roma S.p.A.’, which is one of the
companies controlled by the Council and hence by the future holding company. It would therefore have a
share in a company which in its turn has a 96,94 % holding in the former, which would constitute a sort
of underwriting of its own shares.

In view of all this, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Does the purpose stated in the statutes of the new company not infringe Articles 81 and 82 of the EC

Treaty, Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 (2)?

2. Does the transfer of shares described above not infringe Community rules on company law,

in

particular Directive 77/91/EEC (3), in particular Article 18 thereof?

3. What is the Commission’s opinion on the matter?

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 180, 9.7.1997, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 26, 31.1.1977, p. 1.

C 280 E/52

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2003)

The Commission regrets that it does not have sufficient information to be able to answer the

1.
question concerning the compliance with the competition rules of the EC Treaty.

2.
On the basis of the information provided it is not possible to express an opinion about the
conformity of the measure with the Community Company Law, especially with Council Directive 77/91/
EEC of 13 December 1976 (1), and in particular Article 18 thereof.

3.

See answers to question 1 and 2.

(1) Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on co-ordination of safeguards which,

for the
protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning
of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies
and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent.

(2003/C 280 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0365/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(6 February 2003)

Subject: Risk of expulsion of Mr Aldamov and situation of Chechen leaders

On 18 January 2003 Mr Lom-Ali Aldamov, Minister of Trade from 1997 to 1999 in President
Maskhadov’s Chechen Government, a refugee in Georgia, submitted an application for asylum in France.
The application was rejected by the Ministry of the Interior on the grounds that Mr Aldamov had not
provided formal evidence of his identity. On 25 January the French authorities sought to put Mr Aldamov
on a plane to Georgia, but he refused to board the aircraft. Five testimonies from journalists, heads of
associations, relatives and the French Foreign Ministry certify that Mr Aldamov is in fact Mr Aldamov.
Furthermore, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has stated once again that Chechens
are not safe in Georgia. Pending consideration on 5 February 2003 of the decision on the validity of the
rejection of his application for asylum, the Ministry of the Interior has asked the Bobigny court to keep the
former minister in the waiting area at Roissy airport.

Is the Council aware of Mr Aldamov’s situation and the fact that he risks being expelled from EU territory?
Given the increasing number of obstacles to freedom of movement and residence within the EU faced by
Chechen personalities (cid:1) including,
in addition to Mr Aldamov, Mr Zakhaiev, Minister of Culture,
threatened with extradition in the UK, Mr Akhmadov, Foreign Minister, who is unable to leave the United
States without a passport, Mr Khanbiev, Minister of Health, whose Schengen visa is no longer being
renewed, and Mrs Dudaeva, widow of President Dudaev, whose passport has not been renewed (cid:1) does the
Council not consider that it should, as a matter of the utmost urgency, draw up a ‘white list’ of Chechen
personalities, pursuant to Article 14(3) of the Treaty, on the basis of which the Union, as such, could grant
visas, residence permits and other documents which would enable these Chechen leaders to pursue their
activities under the best possible conditions with the aim of seeking a political solution to the tragic events
afflicting their country?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The examination of individual applications for asylum is the responsibility of the Member States.

As regards the granting of entry visas, Article 5 of the 1990 Schengen Convention provides that Member
States may grant entry to aliens applying for visas, provided they are not, inter alia, considered to be a
threat to public policy, national security or international relations.