WRITTEN QUESTION E-2021/99 by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Commission. National interpretation of Article 86 of the EC Treaty.
18. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 203 E/117 Faced with a very grave humanitarian situation the Commission has made every effort to mobilise funds quickly. The Commissionís Humanitarian Office (ECHO) initiated a programme (€ 1,75 million), but much larger sums were needed. The most effective way to mobilise PHARE funds was to cancel the tender in order to make € 8,5 million of the € 10 million immediately available for basic needs. Food, vitamins and other basic supplies will be provided for a period of nine months to the 157 child care institutions in greatest need. The reallocated funds will also provide for basic repairs of heating, roofs and sanitary equipment. At the same time, the Commission has been pressing the Romanian authorities to set up a single authority responsible for all children in care, to provide adequate funding from the national budget and to pursue longer standards and practice. term child care strategies based on international The remaining € 1,5 million will be used to set up a technical assistance team in Romania to monitor the humanitarian assistance, the single authority and to help Romania set norms for appropriate standards for all residential childcare institutions. to support In the 1999 PHARE budget a further € 25 million has been allocated for child protection. Part of this amount will be used to assist the authorities with the structural reform of the childcare sector and part will be needed for basic supplies. The decision on the division of the funds will be based on information provided by the technical assistance team which monitors the humanitarian assistance. The reform, based on the decentralisation to local authorities of responsabilities for child protection, and the development of new child protection services should provide an alternative to the traditional approach of placing children in institutions and thus eventually lead to a reduced number of children in the existing institutions. (1) COM(97) 2003 final. (2) COM(1999) 510 final. (2000/C 203 E/148) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2021/99 by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Commission (9 November 1999) Subject: National interpretation of Article 86 of the EC Treaty Article 86 meets the criteria for interpretation pursuant to Article 81 (national interpretation) as regards public undertakings and undertakings that are granted special or exclusive rights. This point is dealt with inter alia in the Commission White Paper on modernisation of the rules implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (1). If Article 86 is watered down (for instance by introducing an extended rule-of-reason principle), Member States would then be able to provide indirect support for publicly owned undertakings at the expense of their competitors. Does the Commission take the view that the principles referred to above must also be applied in full to Article 86 and, if so, what criteria must be used to decide whether the Commission, rather than a national authority, is to examine and interpret a point of law? (1) OJ C 132, 12. 5. 1999, p. 1. Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1999) In the Commissionís 1997 notice on cooperation between national competition authorities and the Commission in handling cases falling within the scope of Article 85 or 86 of the EC Treaty, (1) cases involving the application of Article 86 (formerly Article 90) of the EC Treaty are identified as being of particular significance to the Community (point 36). The notice states that such cases will more often than not have to be dealt with by the Commission. The White Paper does not alter the position in any way. In proposing that national authorities and courts should be empowered to apply Article 81 (formerly Article 85) of the EC Treaty in its entirety, it does not C 203 E/118 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18. 7. 2000 prejudge the allocation between the Commission and national competition authorities of cases involving the application of Article 86. In a legal exception system like the current one, the Commission is in principle better placed than national competition authorities to deal with such cases. As to national courts, according to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice they have jurisdiction to apply Article 86. (1) OJ C 313, 15. 10. 1997. (2000/C 203 E/149) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2023/99 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission (9 November 1999) Subject: Distortion of competition resulting from subsidies in the steel sector 1. What does the phrase áany aidí mean in Article 1(1) of Decision No 2496/96/ECSC establishing Community rules for state aid to the steel industry (1) in the light of the practice of the Commission and the Council of increasingly deciding on exemptions from the strict ban on subsidies in the steel industry? In future will the Commission take the phrase áany aidí literally and authorise only those forms of aid 2. which it has declared to be permissible? (1) OJ L 338, 28. 12. 1996, p. 42. Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 December 1999) The scope of the term áaidí 1. in Article 1(1) of Commission Decision No 2496/96/ECSC of 18 December 1996 establishing Community rules for State aid to the steel industry is meant to cover any aid. This decision, commonly referred to as the steel aid code, was approved under the procedure of Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty, as derogation to the general principle in Article 4 of the ECSC Treaty that declares any aid to the steel industry to be incompatible. The comments made by the Honourable Member seem to refer to decisions taken by the Commission to approve restructuring aid to certain steel companies. Like the steel aid code, these decisions were approved under the procedure of Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty. When approved, they were considered as fulfilling the Community interests and accordingly considered as equivalent to Community aid. These decisions have not been taken as derogation to the steel aid code but, as the latter, as a derogation to the ECSC Treaty. 2. Already when the Council gave its unanimous assent to the last group of such decisions, in 1993, it declared that such would be the last time and no Member State has since then presented a new request for use of derogation under Article 95. (2000/C 203 E/150) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2025/99 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (3 November 1999) Subject: Sanctions imposed on Burma In the light of continuing repression and discrimination practised by the military regime in Burma, what steps is the Commission taking to ensure that sanctions imposed against them are enforced?