92001E1443

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1443/01

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Competition on the internal electricity market

On 5 March 1998, 10 March 1999 and 26 November 1999 I tabled questions to the Commission on the compatibility of French electricity law with the electricity directive and European competition rules, in relation in particular to the transfer of a token amount from the French electricity network to Électricité de France (EDF) - (Questions P-0776/98(1), H-0258/99(2) and H-0748/99(3)). The Commission answered at the time that it would look into the matter.

1. Can the Commission inform me of the results of its investigations?

2. Does the Commission agree that the transfer of the token amount of 1 franc by the French state's electricity transmission network to EDF amounts to a form of state support incompatible with the Treaty that distorts competition on the internal market?

(1) OJ C 304, 2.10.1998, p. 157.

(2) Written answer of 13.4.1999.

(3) Written answer of 14.12.1999.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2001)

Following the Honourable Member's previous questions (P-776/98(1), H-258/95(2) and H-748/99(3)) in April 1999 the Commission requested the French authorities to provide information on the arrangements adopted by the French Parliament in connection with the ownership of the French electricity transmission network.

The information submitted by France on the said arrangements indicated that, following a great controversy in France over the nature of the concession granted to Electricité de France (EDF) in 1958, the French Parliament had decided in 1997 to clarify the ownership status of the high voltage transmission network. In particular, pursuant to Article 3 of Law 97-1026 of 10 November 1997, EDF was allowed to reclassify in its balance sheet the assets concerning the transmission infrastructure from the item Immobilisations corporelles du domaine concédé to the item Immobilisations corporelles du domaine propre.

According to the information submitted, EDF had been entrusted with the operation of that infrastructure under a concession of 75 years included in its first Cahier de charges adopted by Decree No 56-1225 of 28 November 1956. However, the concession contract appeared to be imperfect in several respects. In particular, the long-term concession arrangements did not specify the regime of ownership of the relevant assets during and at the end of the concession. By contrast, the concession clearly established that EDF was obliged to bear all the costs during the concession related to the maintenance, renewal, reinforcement and extension of the relevant infrastructure. On account of these considerations, the French Parliament had considered that the concession regime was that of biens propres and that, consequently, EDF had received the ownership of the relevant assets ab initio at the moment of the concession.

It is to be noted that under the biens propres regime of concession, recognised by the French doctrine, the relevant assets are not subjected to any right or condition providing for the return of the assets to the grantor.

However, the Commission's attention has recently been drawn to the incoherence that may exist between the consideration of the concession regime as that of biens propres and the accounting adjustments and the fiscal provisions connected with the reclassification.

The Commission has asked the French authorities for information about this alleged incoherence and will re-examine all the relevant arrangements as a whole. The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of the results of its investigation as soon as it takes a position.

(1) OJ C 304, 2.10.1998.

(2) Written answer of 13.4.1999.

(3) Written answer of 14.12.1999.