WRITTEN QUESTION E-2059/00 by Elisa Damião (PSE) to the Commission. Workplace accidents.
Date: 2000-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, civil engineering, labour inspectorate, labour law, occupational accident, occupational health, occupational safety, processing industry

C 113 E/60

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

In general terms, the Commission is of the opinion that available catch quotas in third country waters
under a fisheries agreement must be utilised in a rational and optimal manner and that appropriate
mechanisms making transfers of unused or under-utilised catch quotas to other interested Member States
should be designed without prejudice to the principle of relative stability.

The Court of Justice ruled, in its judgement given on 13 October 1992 (1) that, under the principle of
(cid:145)relative stability(cid:146), under-utilisation alone offers no valid motive for a re-allocation of the catch quotas
concerned to other interested Member States. Furthermore, the Court declared that, by accepting the
(cid:145)acquis communautaire(cid:146) pursuant to the relevant provisions of the 1985 Act of Accession, Portugal was
barred from invoking earlier traditions of fishing in Greenland waters as a motive to obtain a re-
distribution of catch quotas allocated in accordance with the principle of (cid:145)relative stability(cid:146).

The Commission is aware of a continued wish by the Portuguese administration to bring about a re-
distribution of catch quotas in Greenland waters. However, no formal request has been received in the
recent past.

As the 1985 Community-Greenland fisheries agreement will not expire, forthcoming negotiations will
concentrate on a fourth fisheries protocol covering the years 2001-2006. The Commission expects to
submit within the next few weeks a recommendation for a Council decision authorising the opening of
negotiations for a fourth fisheries protocol. The Commission will, in due course, following the conclusion
of these negotiations submit a proposal to the Council for the approval of the intended fourth protocol.

(1) Case C-63/90, Portugal v. Council.

(2001/C 113 E/056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2059/00

by Elisa Damiªo (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Workplace accidents

Despite the evolution of legislation in the EU in the direction of greater workplace protection and safety, in
particular in the construction and processing sectors, the numbers of accidents and mortal falls have
actually increased.

Legislation is clearly not enough: we have to find out whether measures proposed are suitable and whether
they are being implemented.

Can the Commission state what data exist on workplace accidents and illnesses, and provide information
on its assessment of the work of the national inspection and administration bodies?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member(cid:146)s conviction that it is not enough to adopt and
transpose Community directives on health and safety at work; rather, what counts is that they be enforced
in practice.

legislation
The whole drift of
transposing the directives is enforced on the ground, resulting in a genuine reduction in the number of
accidents at work and occupational diseases.

the Commission(cid:146)s policy in this area is to ensure that

the national

In this regard, the Commission, already in its last programme on safety and health at work (1996-2000) (1),
adopted measures to evaluate the impact of the legislation in force.

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/61

Amongst other things this evaluation will make it possible to identify the degree of practical enforcement,
as well as the efforts being made and the difficulties encountered by the various players in enforcing the
law.

To this end the Commission has since 1990 been developing projects to harmonise statistics on accidents
at work and occupational diseases (2). These indicators confirm that from 1993 to 1996 (3) there was a
slight reduction in the incidence of fatal accidents at work and accidents involving absence from work of
more than three days.

the Commission also intends to develop other indicators,

for example the existence of
However,
appropriate preventive structures and the level of investment in training in this field, which should cast
more light on the impact of Community law.

Finally, in order to help ensure that Community legislation is enforced effectively and consistently by the
Member States, the Commission, in its Decision of 12 July 1995 (4), created a Senior Labour Inspectors
Committee, whose main task is to coordinate labour inspection activities and to facilitate the pooling of
experience in this area.

This Committee has devoted particular attention to the problems of monitoring inspection in high-risk
sectors or activities, and has organised specific sessions devoted to agriculture, the building industry, and
work involving exposure to asbestos.

(1) COM(95) 282 final.
(2) SEAT and EODS projects.
(3) Eurostat (cid:129) Statistics in brief (cid:129) Population and social conditions, Theme 3-4/2000.
(4) OJ L 188, 9.8.1995.

(2001/C 113 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2069/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(27 June 2000)

Subject: Cohesion Fund annual report for 1998

The Cohesion Fund annual report for 1998, which the Commission presented on 15 October 1999,
mentions that the London School of Economics (LSE) was given the task of developing economic models,
including econometric models, in order to ascertain the social and economic effects of the Cohesion Fund.
According to the annual report this study appeared in 1999. The LSE model was applied to a range of
selected projects. At the end of 1998 no results were yet available.

Can the Commission answer the following:

(cid:129) Where was the LSE study published?

(cid:129) How does one obtain access to the LSE study?

(cid:129) In what respects do conventional assessment models differ from the assessment model developed by

the LSE?

(cid:129) How does one obtain access to the results of the assessment?

(cid:129) Which projects were assessed in these investigations?

(cid:129) Are there differences between the results obtained by the LSE assessment model and those obtained by

conventional assessment methods?

The Commission(cid:146)s departments have agreed on detailed reference values for a retrospective assessment
programme with which it proposes to assess 120 projects.

(cid:129) Which projects have been assessed in this way?

(cid:129) What results have been obtained, concerning the impact on employment of the projects receiving

support? Have durable jobs been created as a result of the projects assessed?