WRITTEN QUESTION E-0006/04 by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission. Granting of favourable tax status to Sicily.
Date: 2004-01-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sicily, State aid, competence of the Member States, control of State aid, fiscal policy, less-favoured region, regional aid, tax incentive

C 84 E/294

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

solution adopted will enable Galileo to improve on the US solution, while at the same time achieving
interoperability between the two systems and enhancing Galileo’s performance compared with GPS.
The target positioning performances, of the order of the metre, are six to ten times superior to current GPS
performances, and this is fully compatible with a business plan based on the marketing of the Galileo
services. The willingness of the United States to use the same frequencies as Galileo for open and
commercial signals is to be welcomed, as it will give a decisive boost to the European programme being
used worldwide.

Galileo will be in a position to provide signals for the open service, the safety-of-life service and the
commercial service; these signals, which will be just as powerful as those envisaged prior to the launching
of discussions with the United States, will also be consistent with the needs of national security.
Improvements will constantly be made to the performance of these signals; consequently, the Galileo
business plan is in no way being called into question.

(2004/C 84 E/0341)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0006/04

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject: Granting of favourable tax status to Sicily

One of the European Union’s main objectives, written into Article 2 of the EU Treaty, is to promote a high
level of employment.

Ireland and Wales have been granted favourable tax regimes.

As a result of these significant tax concessions, Ireland, and to a lesser extent Wales, have managed to raise
per capita incomes significantly and bring the level of unemployment down substantially.

Sicily has similar characteristics to Ireland (cid:1) the region is lagging behind its development and it is
disadvantaged by virtue of being an island with a population of approximately five million.

Sicily has the potential for vast economic growth but this growth is being curbed partly by the legal and
fiscal restrictions imposed by the Community.

Will the European Commission grant Sicily favourable tax status as this would:

1.

2.

3.

enable the island to attract more foreign investment, generating greater development potential and,
with it, employment;

greatly benefit Sicilian firms without breaching Community competition rules;

result in less revenue for Sicily’s budget but not affect central government revenue, with the lower
revenue in Sicily being offset by greater prosperity.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

The Commission would recall to mind that the area of direct taxation falls within the competence of
Member States provided that they respect the principles laid down in the EC Treaty, whilst the area of
indirect taxes is harmonised at EU-level. However, should a tax measure confer a selective advantage to
certain undertakings, sectors or regions, the EC Treaty rules on State aid may become applicable.

On the basis of the information provided, it is not clear to the Commission to which tax regimes the
Honourable Member refers.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/295

In general, the Commission is of the opinion that tax advantages limited to certain parts of a Member State
territory constitute State aid. Such State aid can be approved under the conditions set out in the
Commission guidelines on national regional aid (1). Aid that is not linked to investment, or the realisation
of a specific project and which only foresees relieving undertakings from the costs they normally bear is,
in principle, forbidden.

Member States have also made a commitment under the Code of Conduct for business taxation (2) not to
introduce new harmful tax measures and therefore have an obligation to ensure that their tax measures are
not contrary to this commitment.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.
(2) Conclusions of the Ecofin Council meeting on 1 December 1997 concerning taxation policy.

(2004/C 84 E/0342)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0016/04

by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject: The Grefacsa company and the treatment of animal by-products

In Spain (in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia), there is a single, publicly-owned Category I plant
authorised to carry out the treatment of meat by-products under that category. This plant belongs to a
company called Grefacsa (Greixos i Farines Cárniques, S.A.), based in the locality of Térmens, and handles
specified risk materials (SRMs) that are directly related to BSE (‘mad cow disease’) and other contagious
illnesses.

The plant
treats waste which may originate from a number of Spanish regions or from Andorra.
The animal waste is used as a source of animal meals and fats; subsequently, transport is arranged by the
company to authorised dumping-grounds or incineration plants.

Does Grefacsa receive subsidies from EU funds? If so, for what activities are those subsidies paid? Are the
by-products obtained transported to other EU Member States? Should that be the case, under what current
legislation is it possible to export by-products obtained from materials classified as SRMs?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Animal by-products Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (1) establishes health rules concerning the
collection, transport, storage, handling, processing and use or disposal, placing on the market and,
in certain specific cases, the export and transit of animal by-products and derived products to prevent
them from presenting a risk to animal or public health. The dispatch of animal by-products and processed
products to other Member States is allowed under Article 8 of the Regulation, provided such dispatch is in
line with the channelling provisions of that Article. The export to third countries of specified risk materials
is banned under the Regulation, but the import provisions do not yet apply until 1 May 2004.

Throughout the programming period 2000-2006 and with the exception of major Structural Funds
projects, the selection of individual projects is the responsibility of the authorities in the Member States,
once the programmes have been agreed by the Commission. The projects selected by the authorities must,
however, conform with Community law in all respects, including that relating to the environment.

Accordingly, further to the information provided by the Member State, the Commission informs the
Honourable Member that six operations submitted by Grefacsa have been part-financed so far by the
2000-2006 Rural Development Programme of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, under its
measure ‘improving processing and marketing of agricultural projects’. These operations regardedl