WRITTEN QUESTION E-0952/04 by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission. Procedure under Article 24 of Community Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88.
Date: 2004-03-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, Italy, appeal, competence of the Member States, criminal procedure, suspension of aid, vocational training

C 84 E/922

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Directives 2003/54/EC (1) and 2003/55/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June
2003 on the internal markets in electricity and gas lay down a general framework for implementation. The
interpretive notes for the transposition of the Directives are intended to explain and clarify various Articles
in the Directives in order to assist the Member States with transposition, and draw their attention to
certain points.

The interpretive notes represent no commitment on the part of the Commission, as explicitly mentioned in
the title of the Internet document. They are guidelines and often suggest different options which leaves the
Member States some room for manœuvre, particularly as they are non-binding.

The Commission will base its analysis of the effectiveness of Member States’ transposition of the Directives
on a series of criteria, including the points mentioned in its interpretive notes. As indicated, the notes do
not prejudice the final decision of the Commission or the Court of Justice. They reflect the opinion of the
Energy and Transport DG, although several other DGs were consulted and account was taken of their
opinions.

The draft interpretive notes were sent out to the energy administrations in the Member States and
accession countries. These had an opportunity to comment either at the two special meetings held to
examine the notes, or in writing. Subsequent meetings were held with industry, which also had a chance to
comment. The Energy and Transport DG took account of the majority of observations made in the course
of the consultations. In this context, Eurelectric thanked the Energy and Transport DG by letter of
5 February 2004 for taking account of the industry’s views.

(1) OJ L 176, 15.7.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/1019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0952/04

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject: Procedure under Article 24 of Community Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88

In 1999, following the initiation of criminal proceedings against a former director relating to events dating
back to the period 1991/1992 and unconnected with training activities, the Italian Ministry of Labour
issued a training organisation with an order suspending financing for some EOS, Now, Adapt and
Youthstart training programmes pending the outcome of those proceedings (procedure under Article 24 of
Community Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1)).

The organisation in question appealed first to the Regional Administrative Court and then to the Council
of State against this ministerial decision. This appeal was rejected on the grounds that the ministry had not
cancelled the measures granting financing, but reserved the right to do so on conclusion of the criminal
proceedings.

A final judgement was subsequently delivered acquitting the former director. The organisation therefore
asked the ministry to launch the projects and release the corresponding financing. The ministry replied
that, despite the acquittal,
it could refuse to consent to the conclusion of the new agreement and,
therefore, also to the launching of the activities.

However, procedure under Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 is not very clear. It is unclear what
the procedure should be for the relaunch of activities (and/or conclusion of an agreement on the carrying-
on of activities) and the release of funds when a final outcome has been reached on the circumstances
resulting in the freezing of financing (e.g. acquittal of the accused).

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/923

Could the Commission therefore indicate:

1. Whether, besides the funds, the activities frozen can be reactivated?

2. What procedure is provided for as regards conclusion of the agreement, since an order has been

issued suspending both the conclusion of the agreement and the corresponding financing?

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The decision to grant a subvention falls within the competence of the Designated Authority in Italy
(in conformity with Community Regulations and the Operating Programme approved by the Commission,
and Italian legislation). The case raised by the Honourable Member relates to an action decided upon by
the Designated Authority managing the project in Italy and therefore, in order to either release the funds,
or proceed with the activity, the matter should be addressed to the Designated Authority in Italy.

The Commission can provide contact details to the Honourable Member.

(2004/C 84 E/1020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0953/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject: Discriminatory practices by Romania

With reference to the studies on the internal situation in Romania and the meetings held with the
representatives of that country in the context of the accession negotiations:

1.

Is the Commission aware of the serious discriminatory policy being pursued by the Romanian State
Italian firms, participating in procedures for the
vis-à-vis foreign investors, and in particular
privatisation of Romanian state-owned property?

2. Does it know that these undertakings, despite having contributed to the recovery of vital sectors of the
Romanian economy by way of substantial investments, are suffering repeated violations of their rights
as guaranteed under European and Romanian regulations, particularly as regards the right of
ownership, in favour of companies with links to the previous regime?

3.

4.

Is it aware of the fact that the legal protection afforded by the Romanian legal system (cid:1) under which
judgements are passed by the supreme judicial bodies in violation of general
legal principles and
binding internal rules (cid:1) has created great uncertainty as to the capacity for guaranteeing the rights of
foreign investors participating in privatisation procedures in complete compliance with the national
rules?

Is it conscious of the fact that this discriminatory policy is being pursued in spite of the public
commitments made by the Romanian State to adopt reforms on the theme of the ‘rule of law’ and
‘combating corruption’?

5. What measures will it take to counteract this discriminatory policy?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission has closely monitored the development of a functioning market economy throughout the
accession process with Romania. Although considerable progress has been made over recent years, the
Commission’s regular reports have made it clear that considerable reforms are still needed to attract greater
amounts of foreign investment. Particular attention has been drawn to the high levels of corruption that
exist, to weaknesses in the legal system, and to an overall business environment that remains difficult.