WRITTEN QUESTION E-0686/00 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission. State aid from the Spanish Government to the electricity sector.
C 46 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 (2001/C 46 E/032) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0685/00 by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Commission (9 March 2000) Subject: IGC How does the Commission distinguish between an áopen marketí and a ásocial market economyí? Does the Commission support a revision to the wording of Articles 4 and 98? Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission (11 May 2000) The distinction between an áopen marketí and a ásocial market economyí is, in the view of the Commission, that the former refers to the regulatory and institutional framework for the markets in which firms compete, while the latter denotes a guiding principle for economic policy in which governments may wish to adhere. Specifically, áopen marketsí mean that competition is free and without barriers to entry. By comparison, a ásocial market economyí embodies policy objectives as reflected in Article 2 of the EC Treaty, namely that a áharmonious, balanced, and sustainable development of economic activitiesí and a áhigh level of employment and of social protectioní should be promoted. Evidently, as in any other area of policymaking, a balance has to be struck between various objectives, but it is important to stress that there is no intrinsic contradiction between seeking to have an open market economy and the aspiration for an economy with a clear social dimension. The Presidency conclusions from the European Council in Lisbon on 23 and 24 March 2000 bear witness to the policy objective of making sure that economic and social policy goals are pursued in a coherent fashion. The Council has decided to monitor developments in the area of social protection and coherence as part of a broader monitoring effort which, in addition, covers employment, innovation and economic reform. The monitoring efforts underpin the objective of attaining economic progress and coherence by setting and pursuing policy targets, comparing best practice, and benchmarking structural indicators. It follows from this, that the objectives laid down in Articles 4 and 98 (ex Articles 3a and 102a) of the EC Treaty must be seen in the context of the EC Treaty as a whole and, consequently, the Commission sees no reason for modifying the wording of these articles. (2001/C 46 E/033) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0686/00 by BÆrbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission (9 March 2000) Subject: State aid from the Spanish Government to the electricity sector Does the Commission intend to approve the Costs of Transition to a competitive system for the Spanish electricity companies, which amount to ESP 1,3 billion? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (18 April 2000) As part of the liberalisation of the electricity market pursuant to European Parliament and Council Directive 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (1), the Spanish authorities earmarked approx ESP 1 300 000 as compensation for the ácosts of transition to competitioní. On 29 January 1999 the Spanish authorities notified these measures under 13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/29 Article 24 of the above Directive, the first paragraph of which lays down that áthose Member States in which commitments or guarantees of operation given before the entry into force of this Directive may not be honoured on account of the provisions of this Directive may apply for a transitional regime which may be granted to them by the Commission, taking into account, amongst other things, the size of the system concerned, the level of interconnection of the system and the structure of its electricity industry. The Commission shall inform the Member States of those applications before it takes a decision, taking into account respect for confidentiality. This decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communitiesí. At the same time the Spanish authorities notified these measures, as required, under Article 88(3) (former Article 93) of the EC Treaty (state aid). On 8 July 1999, the Commission took a decision stating that these measures were not covered by Article 24 of the Directive but should be examined in the light of the rules relating to state aid and, in particular, Article 87(3)(c) (former Article 92) of the EC Treaty (2). The Spanish authorities lodged an action for annulment of this decision, currently pending before the Court (3). The Commission is also examining the case as a non-notified aid, because the measure came into force before it was notified under Article 88(3). The Commission will take a decision as soon as possible. (1) OJ L 27, 30. 1. 1997. (2) OJ L 319, 11. 12. 1999. (3) Case C-369/99 Kingdom of Spain v. Commission. (2001/C 46 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0701/00 by Francesco Turchi (UEN) to the Commission (17 March 2000) Subject: Rules on information Directive 98/34/EC (1), amended by Directive 98/48/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, requires each Member State, with effect from 5 August 1999, to notify the Commission at the drafting stage of any new rules on information society services, so as to prevent the emergence of barriers to the free movement of on-line services, Given that any adoption of draft national rules without first notifying the Commission would be an infringement of Community law by the Member State concerned, regardless of the substance of the national legislation, will the Commission say whether or not Italy complied with this procedure when adopting Law 4197 B of the Senate (known as ápar conditioí) and, if not, whether it intends to initiate infringement proceedings against that Member State? (1) OJ L 204, 21. 7. 1998, p. 37. (2) OJ L 217, 5. 8. 1998, p. 18. Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (27 April 2000) In its answers to Written Questions P-1608/99 of Mr Tajani (1) and E-1734/99 of Mr Ferri (2), the Commission noted that the draft Italian law on information and political and campaign advertising (referred to as the ápar condicioí law) contained, at that time, provisions on information society services