ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/896

(2004/C 84 E/0990)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0856/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject: Protecting traditional industries

At a recent meeting with representatives of the employees of Fosforeira Portuguesa in Espinho, Portugal, the questioner was informed of the problems the company is experiencing, which may jeopardise its viability in the future. The issue is competition, because of imports of matches from the accession countries and third countries, such as China.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. whether any research has been carried out into the impact of the forthcoming accession on traditional industries, in particular the match industry, and of China's accession to the WTO;

2. what measures it will take to support these traditional industries, with a view to safeguarding jobs?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Certain studies have been carried out by the Commission on the impact of enlargement on European Union industries although no specific studies have been carried out on the match industry. Similarly, no specific studies have been carried out on the impact on the match industry of China's accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). In the case of unfair competition from the industry of the accession countries or from the Chinese industry, and in particular the non-respect of the WTO rules, the concerned European enterprise is invited to contact the Commission.

The Commission's general industrial policy is to enhance the competitiveness of European enterprises and to help create an environment in which they can thrive. The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the various work programmes and studies on the impact of enlargement which can be found at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme-package/index.htm or http://europa.eu.int/comm/arti-cles/enterprise/enlargement/studies.htm).

Moreover, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to refer to the second communication on industrial policy (1) adopted on 20 April 2004.

(1) COM(2004)274.
3.

The new Drinking Water Directive (3) sets quality standards in particular for microbiological parameters, aluminium and fluorides, based on available scientific evidence, advice from the Commission's Scientific Advisory Committee Toxicology of Chemical compounds (CSTE) and in line with the values recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) (4). The values set are also in line with the most recent documents by WHO dating from 2003. The Commission is proactively following developments in the drinking water sector, and organised, in October 2003, a seminar on drinking water. This seminar brought together a range of experts from across the European Union including new Member States as well as the WHO, from universities, administrations and agencies, water suppliers and industry as well as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and addressed, inter alia, the issues of microbiological and chemical parameters (including fluoride). For fluoride values it has been recognized that the current value of 1,5 milligrammes per litre (mg/l) is sufficiently protective, and that a lower value of 1,0 mg/l could be recommended for artificially fluoridated drinking water. At the same time there has been general agreement that there was no urgent need to change the 1998 Directive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/919

(2004/C 84 E/1015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0932/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject: Contribution to EU economy by fisheries

Has the Commission any information about the relative contributions to the EU's economy of recreational and commercial fisheries? What is the net value of commercial fisheries to the EU economy, i.e. after the deduction of government subsidies? What is the net value of recreational angling?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The EU fisheries sector output in 2001 was around EUR 24 billion (0,3 % of EU gross domestic product (GDP)), from which EUR 6 billion is the value of landings, EUR 3 billion the value of aquaculture production, and EUR 15 billion the value of processing industry output.

The Commission does not have the required information on the weight of recreational fisheries.

The Community structural aid, co-financed by Member States, and covering a broad range of measures, is made available to the fisheries sector through multiannual programmes. Total public contribution programmed for the seven year period 2000-2006 is EUR 5,6 billion. There are other public interventions not quantifiable, at Commission level, which make impossible the calculation of the net value of commercial fisheries.
2.

That is why the Commission has watched with interest the development of a ‘Fair flowers’ movement, and the development of fair trade and ethical trade schemes in general. These allow the customer to influence production conditions by only choosing products that match his or her expectations and wishes. The Commission intends to monitor the impact of current schemes and give active consideration to whether any initiative at European level could add to their effectiveness. The health situation of agricultural producers is an important theme in the context of development cooperation policy. Specific programmes are always worked out in collaboration with the beneficiary countries. An example of a programme in this area is the Pesticides Initiative Programme (PIP), an all-ACP operation with a budget amounting to EUR 29,12 million. It is managed by ‘COLEACP’ (see: www.coleacp.org) and has the safety of pesticide use as one of its main objectives. More generally, for each agreement under negotiation, a Sustainability Impact Assessment is carried out in order to assess potential trade related impacts on the environment, social development and the economies. Poverty, gender equity and health are social dimensions that are appraised in each SIA. Ultimately, integration of SIA results into policy making help ensure increased coherence between trade and development policies and mitigate potential negative effects on disadvantaged social groups. The Commission is also actively engaged in the development of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices focused on developing countries. As well as promoting a number of established CSR instruments, the Commission established the European Multi-Stakeholder Forum on CSR in 2002, following its Communication on CSR (1). The Development Issues Round Table of the Forum has examined a number of issues relevant to sustainable development and the strengthening of social and environmental standards in developing countries. These have included the role of global CSR standards and codes, the possibility of developing sectoral approaches to CSR, the need to develop CSR-awareness at local and regional level, and the importance of ensuring that CSR practices apply throughout the supply chain in developing countries.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/576

(2004/C 84 E/0653)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0371/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Ireland's failure to fix penalties for ozone-depleting substances

What reply has the Commission received from the Irish Government in response to the letter of formal notification that it sent to Ireland in October 2003, as announced in Commission press release IP/03/1425, regarding Ireland's failure to indicate what penalties have been fixed for breaches of the EU Regulation on ozone-depleting substances — Regulation 2037/2000 (1) of 29 June 2000 — by the 31 December 2001 deadline?

What action is the Commission now considering in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

In December 2003, the Irish authorities notified national penalty provisions for the purposes of Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (2). This notification is currently under examination.

(1) OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 244, 29.9.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/590

(2004/C 84 E/0665)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0444/04

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject: Compliance with legislation on health and safety at work

On 26 January 2004, I made an official visit to six companies in Emmen in the province of Drenthe, Netherlands. There I spoke to employees and works councils about the implications of the European Framework Directive 89/391/EEC (1) for Netherlands law, as well as the Netherlands Law on Working Conditions. It emerged from these discussions that the Law on Working Conditions contravenes European legislation on safety, health and welfare services, according to the judgment of the European Court of Justice of 22 May 2003. The Netherlands Law on Working Conditions compels companies to enlist external safety, health and welfare services. The European Directive states that competent personnel should first be sought from within the company.

1. Do companies now have to comply with the judgment of the Court or with the Netherlands Law on Working Conditions?

2. Are discussions ongoing with the Netherlands Government to amend the Netherlands Law on Working Conditions as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

1. Article 228 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to fulfil their obligations resulting from Court of Justice judgments and to take any necessary measures for this purpose. According to consistent case-law, the importance of immediate and uniform application of Community law means that the process of compliance must be initiated at once and completed as soon as possible (judgment of 4 July 2000, Commission v. Greece, C-387/97, ECR p. I-5047, paragraph 82). However, this does not prevent companies from contacting the competent national authorities in the meantime, where appropriate.

2. As the Kingdom of the Netherlands has not yet adopted the necessary provisions to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 22 May 2003 in case C-441/01, the Commission has started infringement proceedings under Article 228 of the EC Treaty and will pursue those proceedings until the Kingdom of the Netherlands complies with the said judgment. It should be noted in this connection that the authorities of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in their reply to the letter of formal notice under Article 228 of the EC Treaty, have indicated that they are in the process of preparing the measures need to comply with the judgment.

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/393

(2004/C 84 E/0455)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0422/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: High-speed Lubian to Orense rail link giving central access to Galicia

The Spanish Government has just announced the changing of the route of the Lubian-Orense high-speed link in Galicia, which is now to have a double electric track. The modification raises the cost of this line to EUR 1 608 million. Has the Spanish Government submitted a request for funding for this line? What is the deadline for the whole of the line to be completed?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The section of high-speed rail line between Lubián and Orense is not part of the current trans-European rail network (TEN-T) defined in 1996 (1). Work on this section of rail line is therefore not being funded from the TEN-T budget; nor has funding been received from the ERDF or the Cohesion Fund.

The section of high-speed rail line between Lubián and Orense is however included in the Commission's proposals in the current revision of the Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network. It forms part of priority project 19, ‘High-speed rail interoperability on the Iberian peninsula’. When the revised guidelines, including project 19, are adopted by Parliament and the Council, the section of high-speed rail line between Lubián and Orense will be eligible for Community support from the TEN-T budget.

According to information received from the Spanish representative in the High-Level Group on the trans-European transport network chaired by Karel Van Miert, the section will be completed in 2010.

(1) Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/408

(2004/C 84 E/0474)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0464/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: ‘Brax’ — sackings and relocation

The German ready-to-wear ‘Brax’ factory in Vila Noa de Gaia (Portugal) has closed its doors, throwing 430 people out of work. The workers accuse the company of leaving the process of transferring production to another country where labour is cheaper (Bulgaria and Poland). Portuguese social security and labour minister has publicly stated that this is a case of ‘arbitrary closure and shirking of responsibilities’ [encerramento selvagem e de abandono], and that the Portuguese Government is going to take Brax to court, as well as suggesting that reparations will be sought from the company for misuse of Community funds. The Minister has also announced that he would activate the salary guarantee fund, so that the 430 Brax workers could receive their backpay, and thus not lose their contractual link with the firm, should a new investor be found for the factory.

The Commission:

— Is it monitoring this serious situation?

— What is the total amount (and the dates) of the subsidies directly or indirectly originating from Community sources which were granted for the building and equipping of the Brax factory in Portugal, whether these were granted to the firm operating in Portugal or to the possible mother-firm or industrial group? What are the dates and sums of the direct or indirect Community subsidies granted to the group's companies for its factories in the various countries of the European Union (or, earlier, the EEC) and the enlargement countries?

— Has the Commission already taken any measures against Brax in view of the extremely deleterious social and economic impact of the closure of the Vila Nova de Gaia factory? Does the Commission possess any evidence that the company's administration behaved in a fraudulent manner in respect of Community funds?

— Is the Commission in a position to guarantee that since Brax was directly or indirectly granted Community funding in respect of its Portuguese factory, the group will not receive any other Community funds, directly or indirectly, for possible relocation?

— What other measures has the Commission taken or does it intend to take with regard to this case?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-0243/04 by Mrs Figueiredo (1).

(1) See page 343.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/699

(2004/C 84 E/0786)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0957/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Subject: The stated intention of deactivating Sorefame-Bombardier

Following my question of 28 November 2003 (E-3672/03 (1)), my worst expectations appear to have been fulfilled, with the announcement from Bombardier that it intends to shut down completely or drastically reduce some of its plants in Europe, and specifically Sorefame-Bombardier, in Amadora, Portugal.

As I stated before, this is a high-quality, high-capacity and high-tech company manufacturing and assembling rolling stock, and currently employs some 550 workers, and provides employment for a further thousand workers in subcontracted companies.

The situation is all the stranger, given that in Portugal, there are some projects which, if they were implemented, could resolve the problem, namely the Lisbon and Porto metro strategic expansion plans, and the Porto suburban trains, amongst other large-scale projects, some of them supported with Community funding.

Given what has happened in other EU Member States:

1. What measures does the Commission intend to take, in terms of support mechanisms for companies, public investment, public competitions, ‘inter alia’, to guarantee Sorefame-Bombardier employment and high-quality production, and thus help to prevent the worsening of the economic recession in Portugal?

2. Does the Commission intend to adopt measures to stimulate Portuguese contracts with Sorefame-Bombardier, to prevent the stopping of assembly lines in the near future, and consequent impact on jobs, given that Portugal currently suffers from the highest unemployment growth figures in the EU?

3. Does the Commission not believe that what is happening with Sorefame-Bombardier in Portugal, amongst many other examples, makes it clear that there has to be public intervention in companies of fundamental strategic importance, i.e. multinationals, in order to guarantee employment, production and development?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

On the social impact of Bombardier's planned closing of European plants, we can add nothing to what we have already told the Honourable Member in our reply to question E-3672/03 (2).

Suitable measures to help revive strategic industrial sectors such as the one to which the Honourable Member refers are a responsibility of the Portuguese authorities, which have reached agreement with us on introduction of mechanisms for supporting enterprises in that sector and on public investment (under the Economy and Transport Operational Programmes we have approved (3)). All action of this type must be in line with Community rules and policies, e.g. on public contracts.

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(2) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

(3) C(2000)1774, 28.7.2000; C(2000)2382, 28.7.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/333

(2004/C 84 E/0392)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0241/04

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: Language discrimination — native speakers

In its answer to Written Question E-2764/02 (1), the Commission acknowledges that a ‘native speaker’ condition in recruitment announcements ‘is not acceptable under Community rules on free movement of workers, as it is unlawfully discriminatory. Therefore the Commission considers that the use of this term in job advertisements is prohibited by Community law.’

Over the last year, Commission-funded European technical assistance offices, non-governmental organisations and private firms have advertised more than 700 vacancies at European level which have been set aside exclusively for ‘native English speakers’ or ‘English mother tongue’ applicants. For those vacancies, no-one with ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ knowledge of English was looked for; rather, and expressly, only native English-speakers. However, such advertisements are still frequently published. These days, organisations are replacing terms such as ‘English mother tongue’ by ‘English mother tongue or equivalent’ and ‘English native speaker level’ and are subsequently interviewing only English native-speakers.

1. Does the Commission intend to combat this? If so, how? If not, why not?

2. Does the Commission also intend to work in future with organisations which discriminate against non-native English-speakers?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0201/04, E-0210/04, E-0236/04 and E-0241/04

given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its reply to Written Questions E-0046/04 by Mr Dhaene and E-0086/04 by Mrs Maes (2) on this subject.

The Community action programme to combat discrimination, adopted by the Council Decision of 27 November 2000, is based on Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which gives the Community jurisdiction to combat discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. Discrimination based on language is not, therefore, one of the areas potentially covered by the programme, and the Commission does not intend to fund such activities.

The Commission has written to the companies Intrasoft and Ogilvy in order to draw their attention to this problem and to inform them that they should take this into account when recruiting personnel.

With regard to Intrasoft, which had been contacted by the Commission following previous parliamentary questions on this matter, the Commission notes that this company no longer uses discriminatory wording in job advertisements on its website; the Commission has, nevertheless, written to this company to remind it of the rules concerning this matter.

(1) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003, p. 207.

(2) See page 302.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/688

(2004/C 88 E/0707)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0188/04

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Abduction of two Ivorians

On 4 December 2003, while inside their vehicle, a grey Peugeot 405 with the registration number 2532CE01, Gbane Aboubacar and his brother Soule Ouattara were abducted by an armed commando near the Treichville cultural centre in Côte d'Ivoire.

Since then, attempts by their family in Koumassi to find them have been in vain. Searches at police stations and gendarmes' barracks in the administrative capital, Abidjan, have so far proved fruitless. Relatives of the victims and their political family, the Democratic Party of Côte d'Ivoire (PDCI-RDA), are shocked by this new episode of violence in the country.

Does the Commission have any information about this abduction that took place in mysterious circumstances?

Can the Commission intervene with the Ivorian authorities so that this kidnapping can be solved as quickly as possible?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The Commission is aware of the case of Mr Gbane Aboubacar and his brother Mr Soule Ouattara. Their abduction was mentioned in various newspapers, including ‘le Nouveau Réveil’ and ‘le Libéral’.

The party of which Mr Aboubacar is a member, the PDCI-RDA, undertook inquiries in police stations in the neighbourhood, and in the central jailhouse, the ‘Maison d'Arrêt et de Correction’, in Abidjan, but found no information.

The International Red Cross Committee was neither informed by the family nor by PDCI and was not aware of this case.

The ‘Ligue Ivoirienne des Droits de l'Homme’ (LIDHO) was informed of the case through newspapers. Their board discussed the issue on 26 January 2004, but decided not to make further inquiries because neither the family nor PDCI requested any help from them.

The ‘Mouvement Ivoirien des Droits Humains’ (MIDH) sought further information from members of the family, but they did not want to give any details and suggested to ask PDCI. In the meantime, the family moved to an unknown address.

The Delegation of the Commission in Côte d'Ivoire will raise this matter with the Government.