WRITTEN QUESTION E-0430/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Prestige: State aid.
Date: 2003-02-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: FIFG, State aid, aid to undertakings, aquaculture, derogation from EU law, disaster area, fishing industry, indemnification, oil pollution

C 88 E/324

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2003)

The Commission does not have any specific information concerning this company’s intention to relocate
from Portugal to Romania. Moreover, to the Commission’s knowledge, the company in question has not
received pre-accession aid for the relocation of one of its plants, initially set up in Portugal, to Romania.
Direct aid to companies under the PHARE programme is essentially aid for small and medium-sized
enterprises, and aid for the ‘relocation’ of companies is not eligible.
In general, pre-accession aid is
administered by the candidate countries within programmes approved by the Commission, which means
that there is no direct aid from the Commission and that the programming of aid is based on recognised
development needs and/or a region or country’s need for preparation for accession. The choice of location
of a business depends on the market and is based on an analysis of the regions’ and countries’ comparative
advantages. The direct aid available plays only a very minor role in these choices, especially as it is
determined in accordance with global development needs rather than the needs of individual companies.

The Commission would also like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to its reply to Written
Question P-89/03 by Ms Bastos (1), and in particular to those aspects related to the Community provisions
which apply in this area.

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 67.

(2004/C 88 E/0329)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0430/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Subject:

‘Prestige’: State aid

The disaster resulting from the sinking of the Prestige oil tanker off the coast of Galicia has caused severe
losses for many firms linked to the fishing industry and other marine activities, as well as significant socio-
economic troubles for the regions affected.

The possibilities for alleviating these enormous losses include various exceptions to the rule laid down by
Article 87(2) of the Treaty, which establishes the incompatibility with the common market of aid granted
by the Member States to certain firms or for the production of certain goods. Paragraph 2(b) of that article
is
states that ‘aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences’
compatible with the common market.

Furthermore, Article 87(3)(e) states that ‘such other categories of aid as may be specified by decision of the
Council acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission may be considered to be
compatible with the common market’.

In addition, Article 88 establishes that ‘on application by a Member State, the Council may (…) decide that
aid which that State is granting or intends to grant shall be considered to be compatible with the common
market, (…) if such a decision is justified by exceptional circumstances.’

Can the Commission provide information on the initiatives it has put forward so that, in accordance with
Article 87 of the Treaty, the firms affected are able to alleviate the losses resulting from this disaster by
means of state aid, without this being considered incompatible with the common market?

Has any Member State submitted an application to be able to grant aid to firms or for the production of
certain goods adversely affected by this disaster?

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/325

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Under Articles 87 et seq. of the EC Treaty, to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission has a
specific power to decide on compatibility of State aids with the common market. On the other hand it falls
to Member States, not to the Commission, to take the initiative in proposing aids that can be considered
compatible. No Member State has so far sent any proposal for fishery or aquaculture sector aid in
connection with the Prestige disaster.
It should be made clear however that under Article 19(2) of
Regulation 2792/1999 (1), as amended by Regulation 2369/2002 (2),
the Member States’ obligatory
financial contributions to development plan measures co-financed by the Community need no longer be
notified to the Commission in advance.

In the same Structural Fund context the Commission, using its powers of initiative under the EC Treaty,
sent the Council a proposal (3) for a Regulation, following which the Council adopted Regulation (EC)
2372/2002 of 20 December 2002 instituting specific measures to compensate individuals and enterprises
in the Spanish fishing, shellfish culture and aquaculture industries affected by oil spills from the Prestige (4).
Waiving certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No2792/1999 and providing additional Community
funding, this Regulation affords an exceptional level of support in the Spanish coastal zones affected. In
addition, under the existing Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) provisions compensation for
temporary cessation of activities can be given to fishermen from other Member States who have had to
stop fishing because of the Prestige disaster. The Commission has not yet received any applications to this
end.

(1) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.
(2) Council Regulation, (EC) No 2369/2002, of 20 December 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying
down detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, OJ L 358,
31.12.2002.

(3) COM(2002) 766 final.
(4) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002.

(2004/C 88 E/0330)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0432/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Subject: Air pollution: exceeding of threshold values for particulate matter

Pursuant to Council Directive 1999/30/EC (1), a report is due to be published before the end of this year
based on the experience acquired in the application of this Directive. An initial provisional Commission
report (entitled ‘Overview of Methods and Results of the Preliminary Assessment of Air Quality in Europe
under Directives 96/62/EC and 1999/30/EC’) shows that the threshold values for particulate matter (PM10)
have been exceeded in a large number of cases.

Can the Commission indicate the extent to which more recent data have confirmed this alarming picture?

Can the Commission indicate the number of early deaths in the European Union that may be attributed to
air pollution caused by particulate matter?

Does the Commission feel that the Member States in which the limits have been exceeded in this way have
taken measures which were inadequate to ensure that emissions of particulate matter remained below the
threshold values?

Can the Commission indicate what measures it is thinking of taking?

(1) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 41.