WRITTEN QUESTION P-1201/04 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Municipality of Rome — failure to comply with Commission Decision 2000/628/EC in relation to State aid granted to ACCL.
Date: 2004-04-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, administration of the Institutions, application of EU law, control of State aid, privatisation

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.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/577

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

On 11 April 2000 we adopted a decision on the aid granted by Italy to the Azienda Comunale Centrale
del Latte di Roma (1).

1. and 2.
provided by the Italian authorities in the course of the procedure.

Before taking the decision we examined and assessed all the documents and explanations

Under Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down
3. and 4.
detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2), following notification to the Member
State of the Commission decision to recover aid granted unlawfully,
it is the Member State that is
responsible for recovering the aid without delay using the procedures in force under national legislation.
By a letter of 26 January 2004 we requested the Italian authorities to inform us by 25 February 2004 of
the action taken to comply with the decision. We are now examining the reply sent by the City of Rome.
Under Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 we can refer the matter to the Court of Justice
after examining the substance of it on the basis of the information available, if it transpires that Italy has
failed to comply with the decision adopted under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

(1) Commission Decision of 11 April 2000 on the aid granted by Italy to Centrale del Latte di Roma, OJ L 265,

19.10.2000.

(2) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.