WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3754/98 by Marlies MOSIEK-URBAHN to the Commission. Repayment of French textile subsidies
C 207/124 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 7. 1999 The difference between expenditure in 1997 and 1998 referred to by the Honourable Member is accounted for by the preparations for the UK Council Presidency, at which time more prominence is naturally given to the image of the Community. This entails a significant increase in the number and type of tasks undertaken by the Commission Representation during the Presidency. In terms of the budget, some appropriations were granted in 1997 but disbursed in 1998. (1999/C 207/167) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3754/98 by Marlies Mosiek-Urbahn (PPE) to the Commission (11 December 1998) Subject: Repayment of French textile subsidies Werner Langen’s Written Question No E-2856/97 (1) and Mr Van Miert’s answer of 4 November 1997 on the Commission’s behalf give rise to the following questions: 1. When will the social security contributions be paid? What payment terms (interest, payment period) have been agreed? 2. Why was the de minimis threshold (ECU 100 000) applied in the case of these unlawful subsidies? Will the fact that only social security contributions exceeding this amount are to be repaid not encourage other Member States to use the de minimis threshold as a loophole for the occasional subsidization of individual industries? (1) OJ C 117, 16. 4. 1998, p. 82. Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (26 January 1999) 1. The new scheme for the reduction of social security contributions referred to in the answer to Mr Langen’s Written Question No E-2856/97 was set up by the Law of 13 June 1998, which provides for financial incentives in the form of such reductions for enterprises shortening the working week to 35 hours before 1 January 2000. The sooner enterprises introduce measures to that effect and the more they shorten the working week below 35 hours, the greater the reductions will be. The actual arrangements for shortening the working week and for exploiting the resulting potential for creating jobs are to be decided in negotiations between labour and management. According to the information which the French authorities have provided to the Commission, this scheme is to be extended to the whole of the French economy. As regards the arrangements for recovering aid granted under the textile plan and declared incompatible with the common market by the Commission decision of 9 April 1997, the French authorities are currently looking into ways in which this aid can be recovered in practice without creating insurmountable financial difficulties for the recipients. They therefore proposed to the Commission that recovery be staggered. The Commission has set out the circumstances in which it would be prepared to accept some limited staggering. In particular, interest would run from the time when the aid was granted until it was actually repaid. In its notice on the de minimis rule (1), the Commission stated that this rule set a threshold figure below 2. which Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty did not apply in so far as it did not threaten to distort trade between Member States to any perceptible degree. The Commission does not believe that this rule encourages Member States to subsidise certain industries on an occasional basis, given that the public assistance to be taken into account when determining the ceiling of EUR 100 000 comprises all aid granted bypublic authorities at national, regional or local level over a three- year period. Any Community cofinancing should also be taken into account when applying the de minimis rule. (1) OJ C 68, 6. 3. 1996