WRITTEN QUESTION E-2383/03 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. State aids assessment.
Date: 2003-07-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, access to information, control of State aid, industrial building, less-favoured region, provision of documents, stamp duty, tax exemption

C 70 E/92

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2003)

The Commission’s modernisation of the accounting system aims to provide the institutions by 2005 with
an accrual accounting system that complies with the most recent international accounting standards for
the public sector in accordance with the Financial Regulation (1).

On the other matters raised, the Commission is collecting the very extensive information needed to answer
the Honourable Member’s question. It will communicate its findings in due course. It should be noted that,
as part of the follow-up to the discharge for 2001, the Commission has mandated the Internal Audit
Service (IAS) to examine the legality and the regularity of contracts awarded by Eurostat since 1999 and to
include in its investigation contracts awarded by other Commission departments. Its findings will be
announced in the autumn.

With regard to Planistat, the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answer to Written Questions
P-1705/03 by Ms Stauner (2), P-1807/03 by Mr Bösch and P-1978/03 by Ms Stauner.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the

general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(2) See page 56.

(2004/C 70 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2377/03

by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Council

(18 July 2003)

Subject: Insignia for European Union military forces

Recent press reports suggest that military forces to be sent to Congo will wear identification insignia based
upon a map of the European Union.

Reports state that this insignia does not include representation of any part of Ireland.

Would the Council indicate if such reports are accurate and if so indicate the reasons for this omission?

Reply

(5 December 2003)

The Council hereby informs the Honourable Member that the only official insignia worn by personnel
engaged in the Artemis operation is an armband in the European colours (yellow stars on a blue ground)
bearing the name of the operation (Artemis); the armband does not feature the map of Europe.

(2004/C 70 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2383/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject: State aids assessment

1. Will the Commission expand on the reasons given in its press notice of 21 January 2003 (IP/03/89)
concerning the authorisation of the United Kingdom’s stamp duty exemption scheme for disadvantaged
areas?

2. Will the Commission make publicly available,
including to this Member, the United Kingdom’s
comments in reply to its invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty on Aid
C 13/02 (ex N27/02) concerning stamp duty exemption for non-residential property in disadvantaged
areas?

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/93

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

It has to be noted that the press notice only gives a summary of the decision and, in order to obtain
1.
more details, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reasoning in 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).

The Commission would like to remind that in the field of the administrative procedure instituted
2.
under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, it is settled case-law that: ‘the Commission is not obliged to forward
to interested parties the observations or information it has received from the government of the Member
State. However, it should be observed that the limited nature of the rights of parties concerned does not
affect the Commission’s duty under Article 253 EC to provide an adequate statement of reasons for its final
decision’ (2).
the Commission would like to indicate that United
Kingdom’s comments are all gathered under heading IV of the above-mentioned Commission decision and
subsequently analysed under heading VI on ‘assessment of the aid’.

this jurisprudence,

In the light of

(1) OJ L 149, 17.6.2003.
(2) Case T-613/97, Ufex and others v Commission, [2000] ECR II-04055, paragraph 90.

(2004/C 70 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2385/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject: State aids assessment

1. Will the Commission state the reasons why, despite the scepticism in evidence in its invitation to
comment published in the Official Journal of 27 April 2002, it changed its mind concerning these state
aids? What are the criteria that it applied in this case?

Did cost effectiveness in the pursuit of public policy objectives in any way enter into the assessment

2.
and if not, why not?

Is the Commission of the view that this is one of the most cost-effective ways that a Member State

3.
has yet devised to encourage economic activity in disadvantaged regions?

4. Will the Commission give its estimate of the likely deadweight cost (cid:1) i.e. the cost to the public
exchequer not related to the achievement of the objectives (cid:1) involved in the UK Government’s decision to
provide stamp duty exemption for non-residential property in disadvantaged areas?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission would like to recall that the invitation to comment published in the Official Journal
1.
of the European Union (1) was the Commission Decision on the opening of procedure. Article 6 of the
Council Regulation on State aid procedure (2) provides that a decision to initiate the formal investigation
procedure must include a ‘preliminary assessment of the Commission as to the aid character of the
proposed measure’.

It is settled case-law that: ‘It follows that the classification of a measure as State aid in a decision to initiate
the formal investigation procedure is merely provisional. The very aim of initiating the procedure is to
enable the Commission to obtain all the views it needs in order to be able to adopt a definitive decision on
the point’ (3).