Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 41kWORD 18k
20 March 2019
Question for written answer P-001421-19
to the Commission
Rule 130
Marco Valli (EFDD) , Marco Zanni (ENF)

 Subject:  Annulment of the decision concerning the illegitimate nature of the intervention by the Inter-bank Fund to assist Tercas
 Answer in writing 

On 19 March 2019, the Court of Justice of the EU annulled the Commission decision that the intervention in support of Banca Tercas by the ‘Fondo Interbancario per la tutela dei depositi’ (Inter-bank Deposit Guarantee Fund) (FITD) constituted ‘illegitimate state aid’, holding that, on the contrary, it was entirely legitimate and compatible with the internal market.

The misapplication of the state aid rules to the intervention by the FITD made it necessary, in similar cases, to adopt solutions that were more burdensome for savers and creditors. In this case, as Bankitalia explains, ‘if the intervention by the FITD had not been classified as state aid, the FITD’s operation to rescue the four banks [then undergoing bail-ins: Etruria, CariChieti, CariFerrara and Marche] would not have entailed the sacrifice of the rights of subordinate creditors and would have been carried out so as to assess banks’ non-performing loans in terms of balance sheet value’.

1. Can the Commission explain why it decided that the FITD’s intervention constituted state aid, despite the lack of solid evidence that the intervention was undertaken at the behest of the State and that State resources were used in it?

2. Can it identify who was responsible for this assessment, and say whether it was influenced by external pressure?

3. Can it indicate whether and how it intends to respond to the damage wrongly caused to the savers and banks concerned by this illegitimate decision, and compensate them appropriately for it?

Original language of question: IT 
Last updated: 3 April 2019Legal notice - Privacy policy