WRITTEN QUESTION E-2384/03 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. State aids assessment.
Date: 2003-07-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, deprived urban area, regional aid, stamp duty, tax exemption

C 65 E/138

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

antagonistic towards or indifferent to quarterly reporting of one form or another? Will the Commission
forward and publish the summary document prepared for the Commissioner on the results of the
consultation?

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 152.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

In addition to the answer already given to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-1885/03, the
Commission is in a position to provide the following information:

(cid:1) Prior to its proposal for a Directive (1) on the transparency obligations for security issuers, the

Commission services carried out two written consultation rounds.

(cid:1) In the first consultation round, the Commission presented the idea of making quarterly reports
mandatory for both share issuers and bond issuers for each quarter of the financial year. A summary
of the replies received has been published on the Commission website in December 2001 (2).

(cid:1) In the second consultation round which lasted from May until July 2002, the Commission presented
the idea of making quarterly reports mandatory for shares issuers for the first three quarter of a
company’s financial year; smaller share issuers should only be subject to lighter financial reporting
requirements whereas the other issuers should be subject
to compliance with the international
accounting standards for interim financial reporting (IAS 34). In total, the Commission received 93
responses. The pros and cons on the issue of quarterly financial information were already explained in
detail in the explanatory memorandum of the Commission proposal.

In purely statistical terms based on the number of responses received, the outcome has been as
follows:

(cid:1) 65 respondents reacted on the question of quarterly reporting. 35 respondents thereof (= 53,9 %)
supported the principle of quarterly reporting based on IAS 34 whereas 30 (= 46,1 %) opposed
the principle as such;

(cid:1) 14 out of the favourable respondents rejected the idea of having a lighter regime for smaller
issuers whereas 14 others supported this; seven respondents did not touch on the issue of smaller
share issuers.

(1) COM(2003) 138 final.
(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/finances/mobil/transparancy.htm

(2004/C 65 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2384/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject: State aids assessment

1.
Given that the stamp duty exemption scheme introduced by the United Kingdom is said to extend to
23 per cent of the UK population, and nearly half of the coverage falls outside the regional aid map, will
the Commission state why it thought that the geographical coverage of the stamp duty exemption is
compatible with the regional aid guidelines?

2. Will the Commission describe why it feels that the Canary Wharf financial centre in London is a
disadvantaged area for the purposes of state aid?

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/139

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the relevant paragraphs in the
1.
Commission Decision 2003/433/EC of 21 January 2003 on the aid scheme ‘Stamp duty exemption for
non-residential properties in disadvantaged areas’ notified by the United Kingdom (1), in particular points
38 to 41 (under the heading ‘Compatibility with Regional Aid Guidelines’) and points 42 to 45 (under the
heading ‘Compatibility with the Deprived Urban Area Guidelines’).

in the paragraphs following the heading ‘Compatibility with Regional Aid Guidelines’,

Firstly,
the
Commission acknowledges that the regional aid map for the United Kingdom is not based on NUTS III
areas but on the concept of job opportunity zones each of which has a population in excess of 100 000. It
follows that, in contrast, the areas targeted by the Stamp Duty Exemption are isolated, micro-spatial areas.
Paragraph 41 ends the heading by providing that:
the
Guidelines on national regional aid do not apply to the Stamp Duty Exemption even though many of the
selected disadvantaged wards do form part of the regional aid map.’

‘the United Kingdom authorities agree that

following the paragraphs under

Secondly,
the heading ‘Compatibility with Deprived Urban Area
Guidelines’, the Commission notice on the expiry of the guidelines on State aid for undertakings in
deprived urban areas constitutes the initial legal basis for its assessment. Following this notice ‘failure to
extend the guidelines (the guidelines on State aid for undertakings in deprived urban areas had expired in
the course of the procedure), does not imply that State aid for deprived areas is no longer possible and
depending on the specific circumstances of the proposed aid in question, it may be approved directly upon
the basis of Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty. Accordingly, the Commission will examine such cases in the
light of Community objectives.’ Thus, the Commission analysed the scheme both in the light of the
Community’s objectives and its effect on competition and trade.

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to point 10 of the above-mentioned
2.
Commission Decision under the heading ‘description of
the
geographical units covered in England are electoral wards or divisions selected on the basis of the indices
of deprivation used by the United Kingdom. In the same way as pockets of deprivation may exist in
prosperous regions not included in the regional aid map, one may find attractive spots in the most
deprived wards of the United Kingdom.

the aid.’ Following these paragraphs,

Point 10 of the Commission Decision also refers to the commitment of the United Kingdom of keeping
qualifying areas under review. In addition, the submission of detailed reports in order to evaluate the
implementation of the scheme is one of the conditions imposed by the Commission in its Decision of
21 January 2003. Article 3 provides as follows: ‘The United Kingdom shall submit annual reports on the
operation of the scheme to the Commission. The degree of detail of the reports shall be such as to allow
an evaluation of the effect of the scheme on the physical regeneration areas that benefit from it.’

(1) OJ L 149, 17.6.2003.

(2004/C 65 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2388/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject: Implementation of the Sapard programme

The Community’s Sapard programme was set up on 1 January 2000 with the objective of establishing
management and monitoring systems in a number of applicant countries (excluding Cyprus, Malta and
Turkey). Its total funding in 2001 was in excess of EUR 1 billion.

The Commission has asked the applicant countries to take responsibility for the management of this
programme and for the decisions concerning project selection, tender procedures and award of contracts.