92002E2975

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2975/02

by Pere Esteve (ELDR)and Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Interpretation of Article 87 of the EC Treaty with regard to the planning agreement involving Real Madrid football club and the free competitive market

From the Commission's answer to Written Question P-2491/02(1) on the planning agreement involving Real Madrid football club and the free competitive market the questioners understand the following:

1. although the Commission understands that there is insufficient reason to investigate the matter, it states that the action of the authorities has favoured Real Madrid;

2. the Commission considers that the advantage in question is not of the kind referred to in Article 87 of the EC Treaty, since it does not entail the direct or indirect granting of State resources, and bases this argument on the judgment of 13 March 2001, in Case C-379/98, Preussen Elektra AG v. Schleswag AG, ECR I-02099.

In this connection the questioners understand the following:

- that the conjunction or in Article 87 of the EC Treaty unequivocally implies the inclusion of aid which is not State funding and that that this distinction is maintained clearly and literally in Article 88 of the EC Treaty;

- that the conjunction or in itself signifies an alternative and hence we are talking about two concepts which are not equivalent or equal, but separate: aid granted by a Member State and aid granted through State resources, both of them covered by the relevant articles.

Taking this argument into account, can the Commission explain the distinction made by the legislator between these two kinds of aid? To what does aid granted by a Member State other than aid in the form of State resources refer?

Can the Commission say why, despite recognising that the reclassification confers an advantage on Real Madrid, it does not define it as aid?

Can the Commission investigate this matter more thoroughly, since it has information at its disposal which is not available to the questioners?

(1) OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 86.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

The case-law of the Court of Justice shows that only advantages granted directly or indirectly through state resources are to be considered aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty.

The Court states in the aforementioned Preussen Elektra-case that the distinction made in Article 87 between aid granted by a Member State and aid granted through state resources does not signify that all advantages granted by a state, whether financed through state resources or not, constitute aid. The distinction is intended merely to bring within that definition both advantages, which are granted directly by the State and those, granted by a public or private body designated or established by the State(1).

As stated in the answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question P-2491/02, in the case of Real Madrid, the city council of Madrid and the community of Madrid have changed the town-planning agreement, which appears to confer an advantage but does not appear to involve a transfer of state resources. The measure therefore does not constitute aid, as has also been explained in the previous answer.

The mere fact that according to the information available, the measure appears not to involve a transfer of state resources and therefore not to constitute aid, according to the Court 's interpretation of article 87, is for the Commission sufficient ground not to investigate the measure.

Finally, with regard to the information available, the Commission has at its disposal both public information on the case as well as the elements submitted by the Honourable Members in these questions. Consequently, the Commission does not have information at its disposal that is not available to the Honourable Members.

(1) Case C-379/98, Preussen Elektra AG v. Schleswag AG, 13 March 2001, ECR I-02099, paragraph 58.