WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1959/97 by Mark WATTS to the Commission. Compensation for French truck drivers dispute
Date: 1997-05-28
Institutions: European Parliament, WATTS
Subjects: France, competence of the Member States, complaint to the Commission, financial loss, free movement of goods, indemnification, international road transport, road transport, strike, transport company

C 45/98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10. 2. 98

What proposals is the Commission drawing up with a view to avoiding similar situations arising in the future?
Has the IRU put forward proposals and does it agree to take responsibility for responsible behaviour on the part
of its members?

(98/C 45/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1959/97

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 1997)

Subject: Compensation for French truck drivers dispute

I have been informed that five months after the French truck drivers dispute, many non-French road haulage
companies who suffered great financial loss due to this dispute, have still received no financial compensation.

In view of the commitment towards free movement of goods and services under Article 3 of the Treaty, can the
Commission continue to liaise with the French Government to ensure that non-French road haulage companies
who were victims of this domestic dispute receive adequate and full compensation immediately?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1756/97 and P-1959/97
given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 1997)

The Commission has no effective legal right or ability to intervene in a national dispute between employers and
employees unless a Member State can be shown to be negligent in its duty to comply with its obligations under
the EC Treaty. One such duty is, of course to uphold the right to freedom of movement of goods and people.

The Commission can urge Member States to take all measures necessary to guarantee this freedom and has done
so frequently at times when the conduct of disputes has impeded the freedom of movement.

Compensation  for  losses  incurred  by  operators  is  a  matter  for  Member  States.  When  governments  have
established schemes the Commission however repeatedly emphasises that Member States should act quickly to
ensure that operators receive appropriate compensation without delay.

The  Commission  has  not  received  any  proposals  from  the  IRU  (International  road  transport  union)  on  this
subject. However the Commission understands that this organisation also intervened to help to put an end to the
road blockages, and to try to obtain compensation for its member companies.

In the recent period, the Commission drew the attention of the French Minister of Transport to the fact that a very
large number of complaints has been received and that this called into question the effectiveness of the current
compensation arrangements. The Commission has, therefore, asked the French authorities for an urgent report on
all the compensation claims submitted, to include details of the number of claims received, what stage they are at
and those cases where compensation has been paid. No response has so far been received.

(98/C 45/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1764/97

by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission

(14 May 1997)

Subject: Exemptions with regard to the rice market

1.
Does the Commission not agree that the exemption measure is unreasonable in the light of the objectives of
the OCT decision and Article 3(r) of the Treaty establishing the European Community concerning the economies
of the OCT?

2.
Has the Commission examined in advance the effect of an exemption measure on the economies of the
OCT? What form did this evaluation take and what was the result? Has the Commission taken it into account in
its subsequent measure?