WRITTEN QUESTION E-0631/04 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Abolition of the interest rate subsidy for border regions in Greece.
Date: 2004-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, State aid, aid to undertakings, application of EU law, craft business, distribution business, interest rate subsidy, interpretation of the law, investment aid, regional aid

C 84 E/826

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

In the interests of making the Community assistance cohesive and more efficient and complementary, the
Member States and the Commission regularly exchange information on the operations they intend to
implement. This is done in the countries concerned at the level of Community Delegations/European
Agency for Reconstruction and Member States’ Embassies and in the CARDS committee, which is
composed of representatives of all Member States. Practical arrangements for on-the-spot coordination are
covered by guidelines approved by the CARDS Committee and meetings with Member States take place on
a regular basis in the countries of the region. The Commission further encourages coordination and
cooperation with international financial institutions, United Nations cooperation programmes and other
donors. Such co-ordination is secured e.g. through the Community/World Bank Joint Office. The Stability
Pact specifically acts to ensure co-ordination of assistance of a regional nature, i.e. assistance covering two
and more countries of the region.

A precondition for the Western Balkan countries to receive assistance is that they respect democratic
principles, the rule of law, human and minority rights, fundamental freedoms and the principles of
international law. Article 5 of the CARDS Regulation (1) states that if these principles are not respected, the
Council, acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, may take appropriate measures.
Community assistance shall also be subject to the conditions defined by the Council in its Conclusions of
29 April 1997, in particular as regards the recipients’ undertaking to carry out democratic, economic and
institutional reforms.

Community assistance is being implemented by the European Agency for Reconstruction in Serbia and
Montenegro and in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The Commission’s de-concentrated
delegations are responsible for implementing Community assistance in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina
and in Croatia. The regional CARDS programme is implemented by DG EuropAid Co-operation Office
(AIDCO).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000 of 5 December 2000 on assistance for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, repealing Regulation
(EC) No 1628/96 and amending Regulations (EEC) No 3906/89 and (EEC) No 1360/90 and Decisions 97/256/EC
and 1999/311/EC.

(2004/C 84 E/0921)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0631/04

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject: Abolition of the interest rate subsidy for border regions in Greece

The Chamber of Commerce of the Dodecanese has complained that the Greek Government has decided to
abolish Joint Ministerial Decisions 2041901/16.5.1989 and 2078809/10.10.1989 authorising ‘the
payment of a 3 % difference in interest, to be charged to the joint account of Law 128/1975, in respect
of updated balances of loans granted for the working capital of commercial and craft undertakings based
in the prefectures of Evros, Rodopi, Xanthi, the Dodecanese, Lesbos, Chios and Samos.’

Recent ministerial decisions (9034/B.289/10.2.2003 and 37497/B. 1232/2.6.2003) have amended the
above Joint Ministerial Decisions of 1989, and it has been decided that craft and commercial undertakings
in border regions shall be subsidised for the entire amount by bank loans up to 20 % of the annual
turnover for the previous year or the last twelve months for newly founded undertakings and that the
subsidy provided for by Joint Ministerial Decision 2041901/16.5.1989 shall be granted until 31.12.2004.

A letter from the Ministry of Finance (Protocol 80771/B.2334, dated 2.12.2003) states that the reason for
the abolition of the interest rate subsidy in border regions of Greece is that ‘given our role in the EU, it is
not advisable that interest rate subsidies be granted without an expiry date or limits in respect of the sum
granted, even in the case of urgent socio-economic circumstances affecting the less developed regions of
the country.’

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/827

Does the EU really impose this restriction? Is it contrary to Community law to subsidise interest rates (cid:1) as
the Greek authorities have been doing for 15 years (cid:1) in regions which are mostly island regions whose
per capita income is one of the lowest in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

Regional aid, i.e. aid designed to develop the less-favoured regions by supporting investments and job
creation in a sustainable context, can take the form of aid for initial investment and/or aid for job creation.
Regional aid is defined as a percentage of eligible cost of initial investment or linked to job creation and is
conditional on the maintenance of the investment in question and of the employment created for a
minimum period of five years. Therefore, unlimited interest rate subsidies, which by definition cannot be
quantified, cannot be considered as investment aid even if they could be linked to eligible cost.

Exceptionally, in regions eligible under the derogation in Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty regional aid
aimed at reducing a firm’s current expenses (operating aid) can be granted under certain conditions, but
the aid must be both limited in time and progressively reduced (see point 4.15 of the guidelines on
national regional aid (1)). Therefore, even if the measures involve operating aid, they should be limited in
time and progressively reduced, which was apparently not the case until now.

The Commission can thus only welcome the Greek authorities’ correct interpretation of the guidelines on
national regional aid.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998 and OJ C 258, 9.9.2000.

(2004/C 84 E/0922)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0637/04

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject: Inconsistencies in the Community Customs Code (CCC)

In a number of instances, disputes arise between the customs authorities and taxable persons as to whether
or not customs duties are owed. Where, after years and years of litigation, it is shown that the persons
concerned were indeed liable to pay customs duties (pursuant to Article 236 of the CCC), that does not
preclude the possibility that special conditions exist which make the payment of customs duties
unreasonable for the persons concerned (pursuant to Article 239 of the CCC).

Where a debtor submits an application pursuant to Article 239 of the CCC for the repayment of the
customs duties levied, this is usually declared inadmissible on the grounds that the debtor did not submit
the appropriate application within one year from the date on which the amount of the duties was
communicated to him, as laid down in Article 239 of the CCC. The customs authorities argue thus: if the
debtor has been issued with a demand for payment with which he disagrees, proceedings must be initiated
in order to prove that the amount demanded was not legally owed (pursuant to Article 236 of the CCC).
Subsequently, an application must be submitted in accordance with Article 239 of the CCC to ensure that
the deadlines are properly applied. In my opinion, that gives rise to a rather anomalous situation. In the
appeal (and the further course of the procedure), the debtor argues that he is not liable for the customs
duties levied; subsequently, in order not to forfeit his rights, the debtor has to submit a claim (pursuant to
Article 239 of the CCC) in which he actually admits to being liable for the duties but claims that special
conditions exist which should exempt him from having to pay the customs duties levied. Given the
all-embracing scope of Article 239 of the CCC, I cannot believe that that was ever the objective of the
measure.