WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1553/98 by Ursula STENZEL to the Commission. Border areas: PHARE-CBC
22. 12. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 402/143 CrØdit Lyonnaisís competitors should be centred mainly on Europe. The French authorities have accepted this approach and put forward in May 1998 a very far-reaching package of compensating measures in the form of asset sell-offs and branch closures. After examining the restructuring plan, the Commission came to the conclusion that CrØdit Lyonnais would be viable, even after these compensating measures had been taken; that the aid was confined to what was strictly necessary; and that the compensating measures proposed by the French authorities would allow a very significant reduction in CrØdit Lyonnaisís commercial presence and hence in the distortion of competition caused by the aid. It should be pointed out that the Commission exercises supervision over the aid granted by Member States not with a view to safeguarding the continued existence of the recipient firms, but rather in order to ensure that the common market functions properly, without excessive distortion of competition. The Commission has taken note of Franceís commitment to privatise CrØdit Lyonnais rapidly, by October 1999 at the latest, in line with the objectives already announced by the French Government when the previous Decision was approved in 1995. The Commission shares the Honourable Memberís view that the Treaty is neutral with respect to the ownership of business, a principle laid down in Article 222 of the EC Treaty. The Commission would point out, however, that regular state intervention in favour of the French publicly-owned banks has distorted competition considerably, to the detriment of the privately-owned banks, who did not have the benefit of similar near-automatic support from their private shareholders. In this particular context the transfer of CrØdit Lyonnais to the private sector will help to ensure that in future it will turn to its private shareholders and to the market for any extra resources it needs, rather than to state aid whose distorting effect disturbs the proper operation of the common market. (1) OJ C 368, 23. 12. 1994. (98/C 402/190) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1553/98 by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission (19 May 1998) Subject: Border areas: PHARE-CBC The PHARE-CBC programme was established several years ago, on the initiative in part of the European Parliament, with a view to facilitating cooperation on the EUís immediate borders with the neighbouring regions in the EU, as a complement to the Community initiative Interreg. With regard to the future development of PHARE-CBC, can the Commission rule out the possibility that the funds earmarked for cooperation with Interreg will be used in future to assist all border areas of the CEECs? Can the Commission say whether the Interreg procedures will be applied to the future PHARE-CBC? Can the Commission confirm that the list of areas eligible for aid until now under the new PHARE-CBC, such as tourism, agriculture/rural development, innovation/telecommunications, health care, etc. , will remain unchanged and that therefore the crucial supra-regional cooperation in the border areas particularly affected by the enlargement to the East will not be jeopardized? Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (18 June 1998) The Commission is at present reviewing the Phare cross-border cooperation (CBC) Commission Regulation (EC) 1628/94 of 4 July 1994 (1) with a view to increasing the programmeís flexibility. The review will also take into account experience to date in coordinating Phare CBC activities with those funded from Community structural funds (Interreg IIA). The future orientations of the Phare-CBC programme are also the subject of discussion within the Phare management committee. It is not yet possible to say what the final outcome will be in relation to the geographical areas or types of activities which will be eligible under the revised Regulation. (1) OJ L 171, 6. 7. 1994