WRITTEN QUESTION P-1706/00 by Christa Randzio-Plath (PSE) to the Commission. Relocation of jobs as result of the granting of subsidies.
Date: 2000-05-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Structural Funds, accession to the European Union, aid to undertakings, economic conversion, employment policy, regional development, transfer of businesses

13.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/75

These indications, decided in close cooperation with national administrations, aim to inform consumers in
clear and unequivocal terms. The common egg marketing standards have however not laid down terms or
production conditions for organic eggs.

(1) OJ L 121, 16.5.1991.
(2) OJ L 218, 1.8.1992.

(2001/C 81 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1702/00

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Declaration of contents for perfume

There are approximately 2500 different aromatic substances that can be combined to produce fragrances
for shampoo, perfumes and toothpastes etc. In early 1999, the German health and environment magazine,
OKO-TEST, claimed that their analyses showed that many of the best known perfumes in the world
contain substances which, when used in experiments on animals, had produced indications of liver
damage.

Is it not reasonable that
substances are used?

the declarations of contents for such goods should state which aromatic

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2000)

The Commission is not aware of any aromatic substances that cause damage to the liver in humans when
used as fragrance compounds in cosmetic products on the European market. As its main objective is to
protect public health, Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of
the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1) the (cid:145)Cosmetics Directive(cid:146), states as a general principle
that only cosmetic products that do not cause damage to human health can be put on the market.
Therefore cosmetic products can only contain safe ingredients. An ingredient which cannot be safely used
should be banned because the cosmetic product would not be safe anymore.

Under the Cosmetics Directive, the safety of ingredients, even those used only as fragrance compounds,
can be evaluated by the scientific committee. If, based on scientific data, the scientific committee is of the
opinion that the substance submitted is toxic for the human liver when used as a cosmetic ingredient, it
should be banned and to this end put in Annex II of the Directive. If the scientific committee considers
that such ingredient is safe up to a certain level, then its use should be restricted and this ingredient put in
Annex III. An ingredient which has been shown to cause damage to the human liver should be banned or
its use restricted to a level which ensures its safety and not merely (cid:145)declared(cid:146) on the label.

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

(2001/C 81 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1706/00

by Christa Randzio-Plath (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Relocation of jobs as result of the granting of subsidies

(18 May 2000)

One objective which characterises regional economic development is the notion that structural change and
the resultant job losses must be cushioned by state aid. However, it is apparent that some undertakings are

C 81 E/76

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.3.2001

relocating to assisted areas instead of continuing or expanding their business activities in their original
location. Competitive enticement of undertakings by assisted areas adversely affects the main idea behind
regional economic development. It is to be feared that the displacement effects caused by the granting of
subsidies will increase even further if the applicant countries are also assisted by the European Union when
it is enlarged to include the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. How will the Commission counteract
the displacement effects? To what extent do the derogations from the ban on subsidies take into account
the question whether the assisted relocation of jobs and the simultaneous destruction of jobs in the
original location can ever be eligible for subsidy?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2000)

The question raised by the Honourable Member is well known to the Commission and has been addressed
on a number of occasions during recent years (1).

The right of firms within the Community to choose a geographical location appropriate to their particular
needs is assured by the right of establishment enshrined in the EC Treaty. Any decision to relocate an
existing establishment is a complex matter affected by many factors such as companies(cid:146) wider strategies to
restructure, specialise or concentrate their operations in the interest of improving efficiency.

The Community has, however, a particular interest where a firm undertaking a relocation has been
supported by public funds either in its present or future location. In examining individual cases, the
Commission takes into account all the circumstances, bearing in mind that among the options open to the
firm are those of relocating outside the Community, or complete closure.

The success of the single market depends to an important degree on Community competition rules, in
particular, the rules on state aid which seek to prevent distortions and to underpin fair competition. The
Commission has included specific provisions in the recently adopted rules in the fields of both state aid
and of the structural funds, to address possible problems linked to relocation. In particular, the Commis-
sion(cid:146)s state aid guidelines reduce permitted intensities for investments in officially notified assisted regions.
The new levels seek to allow less favoured regions to attract mobile new investment through inducements,
while at the same time the reductions can be expected to reduce the risk of regions engaging in
funds regulation (Council
competitive bidding. Furthermore, both the guidelines and the structural
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the structural
funds (2)) introduce the condition that the supported investment should remain in place for a minimum
of five years.

The same rights and obligations of membership will apply to new Member States after accession.

Finally, the Commission pays particular attention to major projects as it has to confirm or modify the
support by the structural funds for such projects (investment level of more than € 50 million) on an
individual basis. Part of its analysis consists in analysing the employment effects of such projects on a
Community level.

(1) Cf. among others the Commission(cid:146)s replies to Written Questions E-1396/99, E-1446/99 and P-1805/99.
(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.