# CE2004084EN.01020501.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/205 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/205

---

(2004/C 84 E/0250)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0388/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Terni steelworks: closure of the Thyssen-Krupp plant

Subject:

Thyssen-Krupp Electrical Steel, a German multinational producing electrical steel, has announced its decision to discontinue production at the AST plant in Terni.

The site, which currently also produces stainless steel, since it can split the cost of the melting apparatus with the electrical sector, was separated from the company about three years ago, after the privatisation of the State-owned company ILVA, which caused enormous job losses, reducing the workforce from 7 000 to 3 000.

This closure would now cause 900 workers to be laid off, including the company's own employees and others working in related industries, lost turnover of EUR 140 million and the loss of 90 000 tonnes of ‘grain-oriented’ electrical steel — a very high quality product — per year, the end of the largest industrial group in Terni and the whole region and the discontinuation of an industry which, by virtue of the workers' high level of professional skills, has a significant national strategic value.

The loss of some portions of the market, in some cases owing to obvious errors in commercial and production activities, led Thyssen-Krupp to take the decision — with the backing of the findings of a market survey which seem to be misleading — to transfer this branch of the business to France or Germany and to reject any possibility of selling the business, since this would encourage and provide production capacity for competition in Italy, a country which buys 60 % of all European electrical steel production and would in the future be obliged to obtain it from abroad.

In view of the serious consequences on both the job front and for the regional and national economy, the fact that Thyssen-Krupp's closedown of this activity in Italy may seriously upset the established equilibrium of competition on the European market, and in view of the high levei of excellence of this plant's steel production at European level,

can the Commission say:

| 1. | how the EU might intervene to safeguard the future of the workers in Terni and the region's economy; |
| --- | --- |

1.

how the EU might intervene to safeguard the future of the workers in Terni and the region's economy;

| 2. | whether the decision taken by Thyssen-Krupp is lawful within the meaning of European legal provisions concerning the social impact of industrial restructuring, including Directive 98/59/EC (1) on collective redundancies, Directive 2001/23/EC (2) on transfers of businesses, Directive 94/45/EC (3) and Directive 2002/14/EC (4) on informing and consulting employees; |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the decision taken by Thyssen-Krupp is lawful within the meaning of European legal provisions concerning the social impact of industrial restructuring, including Directive 98/59/EC (1) on collective redundancies, Directive 2001/23/EC (2) on transfers of businesses, Directive 94/45/EC (3) and Directive 2002/14/EC (4) on informing and consulting employees;

1

2

3

4

| 3. | whether this action is also lawful within the meaning of competition law, in particular as regards concentrations between undertakings and the abuse of a dominant position, within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (5) and Article 82 of the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice (C 85/76 and C 70/89)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this action is also lawful within the meaning of competition law, in particular as regards concentrations between undertakings and the abuse of a dominant position, within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (5) and Article 82 of the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice (C 85/76 and C 70/89)?

5

---

(1)  OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16.

1

(2)  OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 16.

2

(3)  OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

3

(4)  OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 29.

4

(5)  OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 1.

5

---