WRITTEN QUESTION P-1155/04 by Marco Formentini (ELDR) to the Commission. Request for the Commission to intervene in the dispute between the company Invesmart bv and the Czech Republic regarding the bankrupt Union Banka.
Date: 2004-04-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Czechia, accession to the European Union, bank, bankruptcy, indemnification, investment abroad

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/575

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member on the fact that the difficulty to share
information between many intelligence and law enforcement services amongst the Member States is one of
the main obstacles to international police co-operation. This practice has a direct negative impact on the
efforts to counter terrorism.

Gathering and processing information is essential to prevent, detect and investigate terrorism. The success
of prevention,
investigation and the subsequent prosecution of crimes depends on the quality of the
information gathered, on its analysis, and especially on protecting it from leakage to unauthorised persons
or organisations. This explains the natural difficulty to share information.

Council Decision 2003/48/JHA of 19 December 2002 on the implementation of specific measures for
police and judicial cooperation to combat terrorism in accordance with Art 4 of Common Position 2001/
931/CFSP is a major step forward for the improvement of exchange of information.

Such difficulties are not only evident in international contacts, but also between different police forces
within countries (and sometimes even within one same force). The level of exchange of information grows
over time as a result of continuing and deepening co-operation within the formal bodies established by the
Union, such as Council working groups, Europol, Eurojust or the Task Force of Police Chiefs. This natural
process is very slow in developing, however. It is therefore necessary to find ways to achieve progress
more rapidly.

Effective ways to build up a culture of trust and co-operation are the training activities of the European
Police College (CEPOL) and the Europol awareness program, as well as incorporating intelligence / security
services in the activities carried out by Europol.

The Commission has recently presented concrete measures that may help to correct
the situation
mentioned, such as a Communication (1) on measures to be taken to combat terrorism and other forms of
serious crime, in particular to improve exchange of information. The Commission has also presented a
proposal for Council Decision on the exchange of information and cooperation concerning terrorist
offences (1).

(1) COM(2004) 221 final.

(2004/C 88 E/0588)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1155/04

by Marco Formentini (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 2004)

Subject: Request for the Commission to intervene in the dispute between the company Invesmart bv and

the Czech Republic regarding the bankrupt Union Banka

Under the conditions for entry into the European Union the accession countries were supposed to bring
their national legal systems and administrative procedures, and the behaviour of public administration into
line with the legal principles observed within the Union. The aim of this question is to highlight a series of
abuses and instances of wrongful treatment suffered since December 2002 by the Dutch firm Invesmart bv
and its majority shareholder Prof. Paolo Catalfamo, an Italian national, as a result of their investing in
Union Banka, which at the time was the fourth largest bank in the Czech Republic.

The investment, as well as the broad restructuring plan accompanying it, were agreed by the investors with
the Czech Central Bank and the Minister of Finance. After the investors had spent a year and a half
fulfilling various difficult obligations the Czech authorities suddenly (and improvidently) declared the bank
bankrupt, which seriously damaged investors. These events were widely publicised both in the Czech
Republic itself and in the international economic press.

C 88 E/576

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Can the Commission obtain information directly from the Czech authorities (cid:1) who, when proceedings
were brought for damages of around EUR 300 million, stated that the Czech government was willing to
settle the dispute amicably (cid:1) as to what their intentions actually are and ask them to settle the dispute in a
correct and fair manner?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The banking sector in the Czech Republic has gone through a difficult restructuring process. In order to
protect the common market, the Commission has to make sure that a level playing field is maintained by
preventing State aid from being granted contrary to EU competition rules.

Bankruptcy proceedings are a judicial process in the Czech Republic and the Commission cannot comment
on proceedings under way. It is for the Czech judicial system to produce a decision in this case.

(2004/C 88 E/0589)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1201/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject: Municipality of Rome (cid:1) failure to comply with Commission Decision 2000/628/EC in relation to

State aid granted to ACCL

indicate that

it emerges that the documents in the
From the answer of 30 March 2004 to question E-0470/04 (1),
Commission’s possession do not
the deadlines and procedures for
recovering the amounts concerned within two months of the above decision, as required by the relevant
rules. Furthermore, is not clear how the Commission, when examining the alleged irregularities in State aid
granted to ACCL, subsequently found to be justified, failed to take account of the earlier opinion from the
advisers J P Morgan charged with drafting a business plan. In 1996 J P Morgan had in fact drawn attention
to an incompatibility with Community regulations on State aid involving public funds,
in breach of
Articles 87, 88 and 89 of the EC Treaty, on pages 36 and 37 and pages 198 and 199 of the report
annexed to the deliberations of the Rome Municipal Council No 145 of 28 July 1997.

it was notified of

Consequently, the Municipality of Rome was aware since 1996 that the procedure for privatising ACCL
was incompatible with the common market and that it could never have repaid the amounts after
privatisation.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. How was it that the Commission failed to take account of J P Morgan’s considered opinion when it
examined the actual reliability of the valuation of the company’s assets to be transferred by the
Municipality of Rome?

2. How was it that the Commission, being aware of the J P Morgan opinion, did not consider that it
should have imposed penalties in respect of the privatisation arrangements that were based on a
deliberate breach of Community rules designed to achieve a fictitious balance in ACCL’s accounts for
the purposes of selling off this branch of the business?

3. What were the reasons for failure to meet the deadlines for the recovery of amounts set out in

Articles 14 and 15 of Regulation EC No 659/1999 (2)?

4. Why has the Commission still not referred the matter to the Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 88(2)
of the EC Treaty, given that four years have elapsed since the Decision was published in the Official
Journal?

(1) OJ C 84 E, 3.4.2004, p. 592.
(2) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.