WRITTEN QUESTION P-0135/04 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Rome central dairy: safeguarding jobs and protecting farmers.
Date: 2004-01-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, State aid, aid to undertakings, bankruptcy, company in difficulties, control of State aid, dairy farm, dairy industry

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/313

Will the Commission adopt a clear position regarding the tasks that still need to be carried out, uniformly,
by the central banks of Member States?

Does not the Commission feel that there is a need to set up truly independent authorities in each Member
State to guarantee and protect the rights of savers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission notes that a criminal investigation by the Italian Courts to assess responsibilities in the
failure of the Parmalat group is still ongoing. Moreover, the discussions in Italy on whether, and to what
extent, the activity of Banca d’Italia had an impact on the efficiency of the controls are still continuing.
Therefore, the Commission considers it premature and inappropriate to express a view on this specific
case.

On a broader perspective, it is the responsibility of Member States to decide how the supervision of banks,
other financial institutions and listed companies should be organised to achieve the objective of efficient
prudent supervision, market integrity and transparency, necessary to ensure the protection of savers,
investors and the stability of financial system, on the basis of the principles and provisions laid down in
the EU Banking Directives (1) and the EU securities, accounting and audit directives and regulations. These
principles include provisions on co-operation and exchange of information between supervisory authorities
as well as the obligation of professional secrecy in supervision.

(1) Directive 2000/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to the taking up and pursuit

of the business of credit institutions, OJ L 126, 26.5.2000.

(2004/C 84 E/0361)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0135/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Rome central dairy: safeguarding jobs and protecting farmers

Since 1996, a series of questions have been submitted condemning alleged irregularities in the privatisation
procedure of the Rome central dairy (see Written Questions P-1747/96 (1), P-1071/97 (2), E-3408/97 (3),
E-0547/98 (4), E-1511/98 (5), E-2486/98 (6), E-0567/99 (7) and P-2069/99 (8));
in particular, doubts were
expressed over the legitimacy of the procedure restructuring the company’s debt using state aid and over
the manner of its subsequent sale to Cirio in 1999 for LIT 26 500 million and of its sale to the Parmalat
group for LIT 334 800 million.

Today, the events of the financial collapse of the multinational Parmalat run the risk of drawing in the
company Eurolat S.p.A., which owns 75 % of the Rome central dairy and which is controlled by the
Parmalat group.

Nevertheless, thanks to the acquisition of the remaining 16 % by Finlatte S.p.A., on which 250 farmers
depend, the Rome central dairy has enjoyed a financial recovery over recent years and has shown a profit.

Today, however, there is a real risk that the other 500 holdings that make up the ancillary industry of the
central dairy may be closed, with serious repercussions in terms of
jobs for the entire dairy and
zootechnical sector in Lazio and the subsequent dismantling of an industrial cluster that is robust both
financially and in terms of production.

In order to prevent the closure of the Rome central dairy, Finlatte S.p.A., which has technical resources
and managerial capacity available, could manage the holding directly, paying rent to the said holding,
money which could be used for a re-entry plan. It could also form a new Newco involving farmers and

C 84 E/314

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

dependent workers, acquiring 100 % of the Rome central dairy on their behalf and for example, financing
operations with a leveraged buyout, as there is still the possibility of wide margins for the said holding.

Does the Commission consider possible the setting up of a new Newco tesa to safeguard the jobs in

1.
danger?

2. What financial instruments other than rent and leveraged buyout are available?

(1) OJ C 345, 15.11.1996, p. 102.
(2) OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 60.
(3) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998, p. 103.
(4) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 84.
(5) OJ C 13, 18.1.1999, p. 39.
(6) OJ C 289, 11.10.1999, p. 9.
(7) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999, p. 102.
(8) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 129.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

On 11 April 2000 the Commission adopted Decision 2000/628/EC on the aid granted by Italy to the
Azienda Comunale Centrale del Latte di Roma (1).

The Commission is not aware of a risk of closure of the Rome central dairy.

On the basis of the information available, the Commission is not in a position to reply to the questions
asked by the Honourable Member.

If a State Aid for the rescue and restructuring of a company in difficulty which operates in the milk
business is notified to the Commission under Article 88 of the EC Treaty, the Commission will evaluate it
in accordance with the rules applicable to these types of aids.

(1) Commission Decision 2000/628/EC of 11 April 2000 on the aid granted by Italy to Centrale del Latte di Roma,

OJ L 265, 19.10.2000.

(2004/C 84 E/0362)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0136/04

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject: GM food and crop imports

Now that there is some EU legislation on genetically modified organisms, including legislation on GM food
and crop imports, what is the Commission doing to ensure that the Member States are adequately
implementing these regulations?

In particular, is the Commission ensuring where there is potential for GM products from external sources
to enter the EU through the ports of Member States, that relevant bodies (cid:1) such as Customs and Excise in
the UK (cid:1) are being instructed to test food, food ingredients and animal feed or seeds at the point of
import, to see whether they contained banned GM ingredients or ingredients that should be labelled as
GM? And is the Commission ensuring that Member States are providing bodies (cid:1) such as Customs and
Excise in the UK (cid:1) with the necessary equipment to carry out such tests?

What steps would the Commission take should any GM products enter the EU through negligence at the
point of import?