Written answers

Tuesday, 23 September 2014

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine

EU Funding

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

233. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the reason his Department repaid the EU forestry premiums that Coillte had drawn down before the European Court of Justice judgment against them; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35359/14]

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Coillte Teoranta received payment of afforestation premiums at the non-farmer rate from 1994 to 1999. The European Commission decided in August 1999 that Coillte was not eligible to receive such premiums as it did not consider Coillte to be a “private-law, natural or legal person” as defined in Regulation 2080/92. Ireland appealed this decision but, in late 2003, the European Court of Justice upheld the decision of the European Commission. 75% of the total amount paid to Coillte in premiums was paid by the European Commission and 25% by the Irish Exchequer. The State was obliged to return the EU element of the premium payment to the EU Commission.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

234. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views that the retention of €4.3 million of EU funding by Coillte is not in breach of EU state aid or EU competition rules; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35360/14]

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It should be noted that the payments in question to Coillte were made in good faith and all involved acted on the basis that Coillte was entitled to this money in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) 2080/92. However, in compliance with the decision of the EU Commission, as upheld by the Court of Justice, the EU element of the premium payments paid to Coillte by the Department was reimbursed to the EU.

The State Aid issue has been carefully considered. The advice received is that to constitute a State Aid, the aid paid out has to disrupt the market. The money received by Coillte in this instance, is not considered to constitute a State Aid, due to the fact that private firms in the same market were at all times entitled to seek and receive forestry premiums. There was no question of other third parties, being prevented from seeking and receiving aid, which would be a distortion of the market. It should also be noted that the ongoing loss of the forestry premium income, formerly received by Coillte, places it in a less advantageous position, compared to any of its competitors as far as State Aid issues go.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.