WRITTEN QUESTION E-1117/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission. Competition in the Spanish electricity sector.
C 46 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 (2001/C 46 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1117/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission Subject: Competition in the Spanish electricity sector (11 April 2000) In view of the announcement that the HidrocantÆbrico shares are to be offered for sale on the open market and given that approval for such an operation is likely to be forthcoming, competition in the Spanish electricity sector is set to decrease, as it has been doing repeatedly on account of operations such as the merger of the Endesa, Fecsa and Sevillana de Electricidad companies. Does the Commission consider the costs of the changeover to a competitive market to be acceptable under such circumstances? Does the Commission believe there to be genuine competition in the Spanish electricity sector? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (24 May 2000) State aid in respect of stranded costs is designed to compensate for commitments or operating guarantees which were given before the entry into force of Parliament and Council Directive 96/92/EC of 19 Decem- ber 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (1) but which may not be honoured on account of that Directive. Compensation, therefore, is for historical costs which become non- competitive following the liberalisation of the electricity market. The costs are determined on a firm-by- firm basis. Consequently, the merger in question should not, in principle, have any impact on the analysis of the compatibility of stranded costs in the light of the EC Treaty rules on state aid. At this point, the Commission cannot say how competitive the Spanish electrical market is following the operation referred to by the Honourable Member before it has been examined under the rules applicable. It will conduct such an examination only if the operation has a Community dimension within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (2). Otherwise, it is for the national authorities to vet the operation. (1) OJ L 27, 30. 1. 1997. (2) OJ L 395, 30. 12. 1989, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 (OJ L 180, 9. 7. 1997). (2001/C 46 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1119/00 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council (13 April 2000) Subject: Imprisonment of Arkin Birdal and the judgment against Necmettin Erkaban in Turkey On Tuesday 28 March 200 the Public Prosecutor in Ankara refused to suspend the prison sentence against Arkin Birdal, a renowned and courageous defender of civil rights in Turkey accused of making ásubversive speechesí. His lawyers had requested a six monthsí suspension of the sentence because he needs intensive medical treatment for injuries sustained as a result of an attempt made on his life. At the beginning of March the former Prime Minister Necmettin Erkaban was sentenced to a yearís imprisonment for similar offences, because of a speech he made in 1994. 1. Does the Council not consider that these blatant violations of freedom of expression and human rights are at odds with the commitments entered into by the Turkish Government with a view to EU membership and the basic conditions for the accession of new States, such as respect for the founding principles of the Union, sanctioned in Article 6(1) of the TEU, and the political criteria laid down by the Copenhagen European Council in June 1993? Does the Council not consider that it should prevail upon the Ankara government to put an end to 2. the judicial and other forms of persecution inflicted on Mr Birdal and Mr Erkaban?