WRITTEN QUESTION E-1649/99 by Benedetto Della Vedova (TDI) to the Commission. ENEL's acquisition of a 30 % holding in Telepiù.
C 170 E/62 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 6. 2000 affect the integrity of the area. If a plan or project has such an effect, it can only be allowed if the authorities demonstrate that there are no alternative solutions and that the plan or project has to be carried out they have to take all compensatory measures that are necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. Because the Commission has not received any information about the project, it can not affirm that the effects mentioned in the question will take place. for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. In addition, The Commission will ask the Netherlands for information about the project ü in particular about the compliance with Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of Directive 92/0043/EEC. Furthermore, the Commission will insist on the compliance by the Dutch authorities with Directive 79/0409/EEC as well as Directive 92/0043/EEC. Alternatives for the removal of dredging sludge have to be judged in the procedure pursuant to Article 6(3) and Article 6(4) of Directive 92/0043/EEC (see above). The Commission started infringement proceedings to get the Netherlands to notify the areas that have to be proposed under Directive 92/0043/EEC. The Netherlands notified the areas recently. At the moment, this notification is under assessment in the framework of the biogeographical meetings of the Atlantic Region. (1) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992. (2000/C 170 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1649/99 by Benedetto Della Vedova (TDI) to the Commission (22 September 1999) Subject: ENELís acquisition of a 30 % holding in Telepiø ENEL is a public company and the recent liberalisation measures in the electricity sector in Italy have not in practice affected its role as a monopoly (in any case, the law assigns to ENEL a share of the domestic consumption market ). The corporation has announced its intention to acquire 30 % of the capital of the Franco-Italian pay-TV network Telepiø. Does the Commission not consider that the investment of approximately 1 000 billion lire in the Franco- Italian group Telepiø-Canal Plus constitutes a distortion of competition on the European pay-TV market? In particular, does it not consider, given the public status of ENEL and its monopoly position in the energy sector, that the purchase of 30 % of the capital of that company may be seen as improper State aid, incompatible with Article 87 of the Treaty? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (26 October 1999) The Commissionís policy in a sector characterised by rapid technological innovation, such as pay-TV, is to encourage the emergence of several competing operators to prevent monopolies being created, provided there is sufficient demand on the market in question. The Commission welcomes the fact that two competitors are operating in this sector in Italy and is following with interest operations designed to accelerate the digital revolution and to consolidate multimedia and interactive services. The fact that a public company like ENEL has acquired a stake in the capital of a private company in the pay-TV sector does not in itself constitute a distortion of competition on that market. As regards the possibility that the operation may comprise state aid within the meaning of Article 87 (former Article 92), under the EC Treaty rules on state aid public undertakings may use their own resources for acquisitions, provided the expected return on the investment is comparable with that which a 20. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 170 E/63 private investor operating under normal market economy conditions (1) would require. The Commission has written to the Italian authorities requesting information so that it can examine ENELís investment and determine whether it comprises a state aid component. (1) Commission communication to the Member States ü Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty and of Article 5 of Commission Directive 80/0723/CEE to public undertakings in the manufacturing sector: OJ C 307, 13. 11. 1993. (2000/C 170 E/071) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1651/99 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (22 September 1999) Subject: Discrimination in connection with pigeon racing in the border regions of Belgium and the Netherlands For the past fifty years Belgian pigeon-fanciers have been unable to take part in pigeon races across the border. Pigeon-keepers from the Netherlands are not allowed to participate in races in Belgium, and vice- versa. People living in border regions in the Netherlands who wish to race homing pigeons in Belgium, and their counterparts in Belgium, are very unhappy with this situation. The question arises of whether the rules concerned contravene Article 59 of the Treaty. As pigeon racing is not recognised as a sport by the International Olympic Committee, the rules would not be regarded as entailing discrimination against sportsmen and -women. For those who take part in the popular sport of pigeon racing, such a situation is fundamentally unacceptable. There is also an economic aspect to the holding of pigeon races. A registration fee has to be paid in connection with racing homing pigeons. In my view, therefore, objections to the rules in question are justified, as the ban on participation by Dutch people in races held in Belgium is discriminatory within the meaning of Article 59. The ban is, after all, not imposed on grounds of public order, public safety or public health. Article 59 does not apply only to rules laid down by governments, but to all rules governing the provision of services. Does the Commission take the view that such a ban therefore contravenes Article 59 and should be lifted? I consider discrimination of anachronistic at a time when European integration is being stepped up. this kind affecting a popular sport in border regions as completely Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (4 November 1999) According to the information available to the Commission, pigeon races are organised by the relevant associations, and the criterion for membership of a pigeon-fancier association in an area of Belgium or the Netherlands is the place of residence. If there were an economic aspect to this sport, it could come under the provisions of Article 49 of the EC Treaty (formerly Article 59). However, the restriction of access to competitions on the basis of residence does not appear to be incompatible with Article 49 of the EC Treaty. In fact, it has been brought to the attention of the Commission that the residence criterion for membership of a pigeon-fancier association is intended to take into account the distances to be covered. For the same reason, it appears that even within one of these two Member States pigeon fanciers may join only the association covering their geographical area