91998E1642

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1642/98

by Christoph Konrad (PPE) to the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Subject: Compliance with the conditions imposed by the Commission concerning the granting of aid in the steel sector

1. On 19 October 1994 the Commission adopted a decision on Law No 481 of 3 August 1994, through which the Italian Government sought to speed up the restructuring of the steel sector. The Commission set out a series of conditions under which aid may be granted. State aid was subsequently granted in 30 cases. Did the Commission monitor compliance with the conditions (reduction in capacity, etc.)?

2. In some cases, Italian undertakings have been refused aid under Law No 481. What instruments are available to the Commission in order to verify that the undertakings concerned have not received aid by other means?

3. Does the Commission consider it appropriate that the public be informed whether and in what way the Member States have complied with the withholding of assent or with conditions attached to the Commission's approval of aid? Does the Commission take the view that more transparency would improve discipline as regards state aid in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 1998)

In connection with the application of Law No 481 of 3 August 1994 concerning plant closures in the private steel industry in Italy, the Commission received notification of 44 state aid cases pursuant to Article 4 of the former Steel Aid Code.

When the aforementioned Italian law was authorised, after verifying compliance with the Steel Aid Code, in particular with Article 4, the Commission required the Italian authorities to give it prior notification of individual cases of application of the law. The Commission decision stipulated that, in order to qualify for closure aid, firms must have been in production on average for at least one shift per day, i.e. at least eight hours per day, five days per week, for the whole of 1993 and up to February 1994, when Decree-Law No 103 was notified to the Commission.

The Commission authorised 34 cases, resulting in capacity reductions in excess of five million tonnes in hot-rolled products, and refused to grant authorisation in 10 other cases because the information available to it showed that, although the firms in question met the other conditions laid down in the Steel Aid Code, they had not been in regular production when they were closed.

The Italian authorities keep the Commission systematically informed of the closure process, which has resulted in the scrapping of all the steel production plants of the aid recipients. The information available to the Commission shows that the Italian firms which were refused aid have not received aid by other means.

With regard to the last point raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission has made considerable efforts in recent years to ensure that state aid administrative procedures are as transparent as possible in compliance with Community law. Where infringements of the rules come to its attention, the Commission adopts decisions which are published in full in the Official Journal and are usually accompanied by a press release.