WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3987/98 by Raimo ILASKIVI Confidence between the Commission and Parliament
29. 11. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 341/25 into account the comments made by the Spanish authorities and a number of third parties, including other competitors of Lenzing, during a formal investigation under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission adopted a final partially negative decision on 28 October 1998. According to the Decision, two of the measures under investigation did constitute aid, namely agreements to defer social security contributions at non-market interest rates and a repayment agreement with the wage guarantee fund, Fogasa, also at non-market interest rates. In line with its practice in previous cases, the Commission rejected the Spanish government’s assertion that the measures in question fell outside the scope of the state aid rules on the grounds that they were generally applicable under Spanish law. The Commission held that it was evident that the public authorities were able to exercise discretionary treatment towards the firm in question. Since the aid was not based on any approved scheme and Spain had not attempted to justify the aid on the basis of a valid restructuring plan, the Commission decided that the aid was incompatible with the common market and ordered its recovery. The decision did not quantify the amount of aid but stated that it was at least equivalent to the difference between the interest rates granted in the agreements with the social security treasury and Fogasa and the market rates. The Commission was unable to establish the existence of aid in any of the other measures under examination, but reserved its position on the question of whether the firm’s failure to pay statutory environmental levies might constitute aid. The Commission is mindful of the potential consequences of its decisions on aid beneficiaries and competitors and therefore endeavours to apply the state aid rules in an objective and impartial manner. (1999/C 341/039) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3987/98 by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) to the Commission (4 January 1999) Subject: Confidence between the Commission and Parliament The President of the Commission, Jacques Santer, recently gave Parliament an interesting outline of his views on the development of the Commission. Since I was not accorded the requested opportunity to speak in the ensuing debate, I am tabling my question in writing. One term which 5 quite rightly 5 was repeatedly stressed in Mr Santer’s address was ‘confidence’. It is also required in relations between the Commission and Parliament. At present, confidence can be measured only by means of Parliament’s vote of confidence or no confidence in the Commission in its entirety. However, in instances such as BSE and the recent fraud controversy, responsibility rests with only one or a few Members of the Commission who have failed to act in such a way as to inspire confidence. Yet it is not possible to pass a vote of no confidence in those concerned, an option which would ensure that duties were performed more effectively and emphasise individual responsibility. What view does the President of the Commission take of the idea of amending the basic rules so as to make it possible to pass a vote of no confidence in a single Member of the Commission who has failed in his duties, which would not damage the confidence existing between Parliament and the rest of the Commission? If the reply is favourable, what will he do to bring about the requisite changes? Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (9 March 1999) Any move to pass a vote of confidence on one Member of the Commission would necessitate, as the Honourable Member points out, an amendment to the Treaties. A significant change in the system whereby the Commission is treated as a single entity, as reaffirmed by the Treaty of Amsterdam, would require an in- depth study of the matter