WRITTEN QUESTION E-2520/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. New Finnish application concerning egg production aid.
3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/61 revolving fund set up by law 208/99, its original capital stock is also made up of Community funds and its relations with the public authorities are governed by special agreements not subject to public accounting procedures. Does the Commission not consider that this situation is incompatible with Community law on competi- tion, use of Community funds and state aids, particularly in the light of the considerations set out below? 1. Public funds of Community origin intended to finance business promotion programmes in depressed areas are being used to provide start-up (risk) capital and liquidity flows (finance) for a single (joint stock) company formally belonging to the private sector and not subject to government control. These funds could be used for purposes other than those stipulated with little real prospect of doing anything to assist the local situation they were originally intended to alleviate. Given the vagueness of the role assigned to the Sviluppo Italiaí company and the impossibility of 2. separating its accounts for activities undertaken in the public interest and its business activities, the company enjoys a dominant position on the market for development services and financial services, while being able to evade public accounting procedures, giving it a privileged position as sole partner, to the detriment of new or existing businesses in the sector. 3. The Sviluppo Italiaí company has the legal personality of a private firm and thus the capacity to evade the securities and guarantees required of a company subject to public law as regard the organisation its activities (parliamentary control, auditing, public accounting procedures and and performance of recruitment by competitive examination). Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (14 February 2000) Member States are competent to manage resources deriving from structural funds. Therefore, the choice to merge all the Stateís holdings in a single company, constituted as a joint stock company, is not relevant under Community state aid rules. Article 222 (ex Article 166) of the EC Treaty does not prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership. Accordingly the creation, by a Member State, of a holding in the form of joint stock company operating on the market does not constitute, per se, an infringement of Community competition rules. In any case, the commercial activities performed by Sviluppo Italia will be subject to the Community rules on competition and on structural funds. The Commission is not informed as to the involvement of state aid elements in favour of Sviluppo Italia. If information should come to the attention of the Commission, it will examine it and take a decision in this respect. (2000/C 280 E/062) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2520/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (22 December 1999) Subject: New Finnish application concerning egg production aid In reply to my question No E-1710/99 (1), the Commission explained that Finnish aid for egg production under Article 138 must cease from the new year. It has since come to my notice that the Finnish Government has submitted a new application to allow production aid based on a different article. Can the Commission guarantee that the aid which ceases at the end of the year will not be allowed to be replaced by any other form of government aid? (1) OJ C 203 E, 18. 7. 2000. C 280 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 January 2000) At its meeting of 22 December 1999, in accordance with the provisions of Article 141 of the Act of Accession, the Commission approved a programme of state aids for Finnish farmers covering the period 2000-2003. This programme includes an aid to be granted in respect of laying hens, which is recalculated from the aid allowed by Article 138 of the Act of Accession for eggs up to the end of 1999. The new aid is degressive, with an average annual decrease of 4,5 % from the amount allowed for 1999. The Commission took this decision after careful examination of a report presented by the Finnish authorities which showed that there were serious difficulties remaining for Finnish agriculture resulting from Accession. However, the overall amount of aid approved by the Commission is below that originally requested by Finland. (2000/C 280 E/063) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2521/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (22 December 1999) Subject: Egg collection and dating In reply to my question No E-1712/99 (1), the Commission explained that Sweden and Finland are allowed an exception to EU rules on egg collection to the effect that collection may take place once a week provided that the eggs are kept in cold storage. Does this exception mean that eggs collected once a week may also be dated 25 days ahead? (1) OJ C 219 E, 1. 8. 2000, p. 18. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 January 2000) The common marketing standards for eggs provide that the date of minimum durability (ábest-before dateí) must be indicated on large and small packs containing grade A eggs (Article 10(1)e) of Council Regulation (EEC) no 1907/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for eggs) (1). According to Article 16(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) no 1274/91 of 15 May 1991 (2) implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 the best-before date corresponds to the sell-by date plus seven days. Regarding the sell-by date, Article 3 of Council Decision 94/371/EC of 20 June 1994 laying down specific public health conditions for the putting on the market of certain types of eggs (3) provides that eggs shall be delivered to the consumer within 21 days after laying. The best-before date is therefore not more than 28 days after laying. (1) OJ L 173, 6. 7. 1990. (2) OJ L 121, 16. 5. 1991. (3) OJ L 168, 2. 7. 1994