WRITTEN QUESTION E-3285/03 by Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Feixolín open-cast coal mine (Valle de Laciana district, Spain).
Date: 2003-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Spain, State aid, application of EU law, coal mining, environmental impact, environmental law, environmental protection, job preservation, mining industry

C 78 E/508

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Ten years later, the Commission reviewed the situation and concluded that the frequency of denied
boarding remained too high (cid:1) around 250 000 passengers where affected each year (cid:1) and should be
reduced. It, therefore, proposed in 2001 a new Regulation (2) designed to cut the frequency of denied
boarding. This would oblige air carriers, when expecting to deny boarding, to seek volunteers to give up
their reservations in exchange for benefits. Only if too few volunteers came forward, would airlines be
allowed to deny passengers boarding against their will. If they did so, they would have to compensate
them at an increased rate and assist them as under the present Regulation. This should lead to a
considerable fall in the number of passengers denied boarding.

The new regulation would also create rights for passengers whose flights are cancelled or subject to long
delays and would cover non-scheduled (charter) flights as well as scheduled flights.

The Commission strongly hopes that the Parliament will vote for the compromise of the Conciliation
Committee on this proposal.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding

compensation system in scheduled air transport, OJ L 36, 8.2.1991.

(2) OJ C 103 E, 30.4.2002.

(2004/C 78 E/0529)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3285/03

by Pierre Jonckheer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Feixolín open-cast coal mine (Valle de Laciana district, Spain)

The company Minero Siderúrgica de Ponferrada S.A. (MSP) started to work the Feixolín open-cast mine in
1995. The mine is situated 2 km from the Fonfría mine (cid:1) the subject of questions E-1892/02 (1),
E-1431/03, E-1432/03 (2) and E-2858/03 (3) (cid:1) and is thus also home to brown bears. The firm applied to
exploit Fonfría on the grounds that Feixolín was exhausted. There was indeed a significant reduction in
activity, which even came to a standstill once work started on exploiting Fonfría in early 2002, and the
mine was therefore considered to be in the restoration phase. However, MSP resumed intensive
exploitation of Feixolín in spring 2003, and the mine continues to be worked at full throttle.

This mine lacks all the requisite permits and statements of environmental compatibility. It was tolerated by
local people because they were unaware of its adverse impact on the surrounding countryside and because
MSP had undertaken to preserve jobs. This undertaking was broken, since the number of jobs has fallen
from around 2 500 to 1 000. In spite of this, MSP continues to threaten local and autonomous community
authorities with the definitive cessation of activities if it is not granted authorisation for open-cast mines.

MSP still receives enormous amounts of economic aid to maintain the mine’s viability (4), when in fact it is
reducing costs by operating open-cast mines and at the same time closing underground mines. The profits
obtained both from the reduction in costs and the aid received are channelled to other companies in the
same group, through investment in machinery and outsourcing services. This machinery, which is required
is also used for other types of work not connected with mining such as road-
for open-cast mining,
building etc., activities which happen to coincide with the activities of the companies referred to above.

How much European aid has MSP received and for what type of activities? Can the Commission

1.
investigate whether there has been any illegitimate use of the European aid received by MSP?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/509

Does the Commission not believe that the aid granted should be used to make underground mining
2.
profitable, as this is the only way of preserving jobs, and also to build up sustainable alternative industries
which will guarantee the area’s future, action which is not being taken at present?

Can the Commission include the Feixolín mine in its investigation into the environmental impact of
3.
MSP’s mines, bearing in mind that the Valle de Laciana has been designated a biosphere reserve by
Unesco?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 149.
(2) See page 32.
(3) See page 180.
(4) See E-0342/02, OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 122. Both the Uninsa company and MSP form part of the group of
companies owned by Victorino Alonso, together with other mining companies which he has been buying up, all of
them operating at a loss.

Answer given by Ms Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Minero
granted by Spain and authorised by the Commission.

Siderúrgica de Ponferrada S.A. (MSP) receives State aid each year for coal production. This aid is

Operating aid granted to MSP in recent years amounted to:

(cid:1) ESP 11 014 million for 1998;

(cid:1) ESP 9 924,26 million for 1999;

(cid:1) ESP 9 633,34 million for 2000;

(cid:1) ESP 8 934,84 million for 2001;

(cid:1) EUR 48 million (ESP 7 986,44 million) for 2002.

The Commission authorised this aid after verifying that the company was carrying out a ‘modernisation,
rationalisation and restructuring plan’ aimed at improving the economic viability of the company, through
a reduction in production costs. MSP receives per tonne one of the lowest amounts of aid in the EU. The
Commission is not aware of any unlawful use of this aid, in terms of compliance with the objectives of
Decision No 3632/93/ECSC (1).

2.
The Commission authorises EU aid for the coal industry in accordance with the existing legislation.
In future, such legislation will be based on Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 (2) which enables production
units which offer the best economic prospects to contribute to energy security within the framework of
sustainable development. Such an objective can be achieved through both underground mining and open-
cast mining, provided that national and EU legislation is complied with as regards the ‘pillar’ (social,
economic and environmental) objectives relating to sustainable development. The Commission cannot
intervene in the choice of mining system by a company, but it does monitor compliance with EU
legislation.

As regards the channelling of aid into the creation of alternative industries, the Commission is in favour of
economic diversification programmes in mining regions. However, aid provided for in State aid schemes
for the coal industry is intended solely for coal production activity and not for diversification activities. In
the case of Spain,
its 1998-2005 plan for the alternative
its mining areas, with the objective of regional development, as proposed by the
development of
Honourable Member.

the Commission has been informed of

The Commission is currently checking whether the Spanish authorities are properly applying EU

3.
environmental law with regard to this company’s activities.

(1) Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December 1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the

coal industry, OJ L 329, 30.12.1993.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002 on State aid to the coal industry, OJ L 205, 2.8.2002.