WRITTEN QUESTION E-0719/04 by Ieke van den Burg (PSE) to the Commission. Training and development funds in the Netherlands as a contribution to the Lisbon strategy.
Date: 2004-03-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, collective agreement, competition law, control of State aid, fight against unemployment, vocational training

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/857

Of course, as a combustion installation with a rated thermal input exceeding 50 Megawatt (MW), it will be
subject
to the requirements provided for by Council Directives 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996
concerning integrated pollution prevention and control and 2001/80/EC of the Parliament and of the
Commission of 23 October 2001, on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from
large combustion plants (1).
In particular, according to Article 8 of Directive 96/61/EC, competent
authorities are obliged to ensure that permits granted to the new installations covered by this Directive
include all measures necessary for compliance with the requirements of Articles 3 and 10 in order to
achieve a high level of protection for the environment as a whole by means of protection of the air, water
and land. In addition, according to Article 4 of Directive 2001/80/EC the competent authorities are obliged
to ensure that licences granted for the construction or for the operation of the new installations covered by
this Directive contain conditions relating to compliance with the emission limit values laid down in part B
of Annexes III to VII in respect of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust. In accordance with Article 10
of Directive 2001/80/EC, the same limit values shall apply where the operator of a combustion plant is
envisaging a change within the meaning of Article 2(10) b and 12(2) of Directive 96/61/EC.

In the light of the information given by the Honourable Member, it appears that such permits and licences
have not yet been issued. Therefore, no breach of Community law can be identified at present. The
infringement procedure for failure to transpose Directive 2001/80/EC in the Italian legal system,
mentioned by the Honourable Member, is a general one and it has no specific link with the situation in
Civitavecchia.

Emissions from large combustion plants contribute to concentrations in ambient air of certain pollutants
which are regulated by Community air quality legislation. As regards the Directives on air quality,
in particular Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and
management and Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur
dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air,
the
Commission started an infringement procedure against Italy for its failure to monitor PM10 concentrations
in Civitavecchia. No other breach of the above-mentioned directives has been identified as regards the
same area and no further breach can be identified on the basis of the information given by the Honourable
Member. However, if PM10 concentrations in that zone had exceeded limit values together with a margin
of tolerance, the Italian authorities would be under the obligation to establish a plan or program within
the meaning of Article 8(3) of Directive 96/62/EC, and to ensure compliance with the limit values laid
down by Directive 1999/30/EC by 1 January 2005 at the latest. The Commission is closely monitoring
compliance with the above obligations for all Member States, including Italy.

As regards air pollution from arsenic and mercury, the Commission is aware of the toxicity of these
substances and, on 16 July 2003, it adopted a proposal for a Directive on concentrations of arsenic,
cadium, mercury, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air (2).

(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.
(2) COM(2003) 423 final.

(2004/C 84 E/0949)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0719/04

by Ieke van den Burg (PSE) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject: Training and development funds in the Netherlands as a contribution to the Lisbon strategy

The Netherlands is active, on the basis of the Lisbon strategy and Council opinion, in deploying initiatives
jointly with the social partners to combat unemployment among lower-skilled workers. An important
means of financing such activities is being created in the form of contributions by the social partners to
training and development funds. These funds are private contributions financed from the margin arising
out of wage negotiations. Where a sectoral collective bargain is struck, the relevant collective-bargaining

C 84 E/858

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

In 2003, the Netherlands Supreme Court delivered a
provisions can be declared generally binding.
judgment confirming that a generally binding declaration adopted as part of a collective bargaining
agreement did not amount to a form of state support (Case CO1/117HR). A number of governments are
reported to have written to the Commission about the policy of the Competition DG, which does in fact
designate such training funds as public-sector support.

1.
Does the Commission agree that committing resources from collectively financed training funds to
job-creation schemes can contribute favourably to achieving the Lisbon objectives and improving
employee qualifications?

2.
Does the Commission also agree that a conflict exists between the commitment expected of the
social partners under the Lisbon strategy and the Commission’s attitude in designating the provision of
such resources as public-sector funding?

Can the Commission confirm that different governments have made representations to it in this

3.
connection? When will the Commission answer them, and what will the main thrust of its answer be?

Is the Commission prepared to improve policy coordination by its directorates-general and to
4.
cooperate in finding a quick solution to the impasse so as to enable training and development funds to be
fully committed in support of the Lisbon strategy?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

1.
Training funds undoubtedly make a positive contribution to implementing the Lisbon strategy. They
can bring about a quantitative and qualitative improvement in employment and contribute to a policy of
life-long training.

As part of its examination of whether state aid schemes are compatible, the Commission takes into
including those of employment policy, and

2.
consideration the objectives of other Union policies,
incorporates them into its analysis.

First of all it has to determine on the basis of objective criteria whether the funding in question constitutes
state aid within the meaning of the EC Treaty. If a state scheme distorts free competition and affects intra-
Community trade by conferring an advantage on one or more enterprises it constitutes state aid. As part of
its examination of whether the aid is compatible with the EC Treaty, the Commission then takes account
of the scheme’s effects, which naturally include social effects, on other Union policies. The Lisbon strategy
could only be considered incompatible with policy on state aid if the measures taken to implement it were
classified as state aid that is incompatible with the EC Treaty.

To date no decision has been taken on the status of training funds. Although in certain circumstances
funds may cause distortion of competition, training funds do not necessarily do so. Taking account of
those funds’ undoubtedly beneficial effects and their contribution to attaining the Lisbon strategy
objectives, the Commission sees no reason to consider the training funds of which it is currently aware
to have a significant impact on competition and intra-Community trade. It considers that the public
authorities are justified in giving firms incentives to improve employment levels and workforce skills.
Consequently, the objectives of the Lisbon strategy and those of state aid policy are certainly not
incompatible.

3.
So far, only two Member States have been in touch with the Commission concerning training funds.
The Commission is currently examining those cases in relation to the various policies of the Union. At the
present moment, it has not adopted a final position on the substance of those decisions. In any event,
it will undoubtedly take account of the favourable social effect of the schemes. Moreover, it is currently
developing an economic approach that allows a flexible appraisal of aid schemes that are unlikely to have
a significant effect on competition and intra-Community trade.

4.
Examination of all aspects of the training fund cases is fully coordinated within the Commission. The
development of the abovementioned economic approach should allow it to appraise the effects of those
funds and the favourable contribution they can make to improving conditions of employment.