WRITTEN QUESTION E-3807/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Illegal deductions of aid for farmers.
Date: 2000-12-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Greece, aid to agriculture, application of EU law, cotton, olive oil, tax, tobacco

C 174 E/148

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2001)

The question relates to Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees(cid:146) rights in the event of transfers of
undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses, as amended by Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June
1998, and whether it applies in the event that, following a tender procedure, there was a change of
contractor with respect to a contractor for the provision of a crŁche, on the assumption that the crŁche in
question fulfilled the criteria for it to be considered an economic entity retaining its own identity.

If the transfer of activities involves the precise conditions mentioned above, the answer is yes. Under the
consistent case law of the Court of Justice, the decisive criterion for the existence of a transfer within the
meaning of Directive 77/187/EEC is whether the entity in question retains its identity following the
transfer. The Court(cid:146)s opinion is that identity is maintained if the transferee pursues the same economic
activity and if all the resources necessary to pursue the activity in question are transferred. Of course, the
conditions of application of the Directive are assessed on a case-by-case basis; all of the circumstances in
each situation must be examined in order to determine whether the conditions for the transfer of an entity
are actually met.

The Honourable Member also asks how the application of Directive 77/187/EEC as amended would be
made compatible with the principles of non-discrimination in public procurement procedures set out in
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of
public service contracts.

It should be explained that the central objective of Directive 77/187/EEC as amended is to safeguard
employees(cid:146) rights in the event of a transfer resulting from a legal transfer or merger bringing about a
change of employer. Once the objective conditions for application of the Directive are met, the provisions
protecting employees(cid:146) rights come into play regardless of the actual manner of transfer of activity. The fact
that the transfer follows a procedure for the award of a public service contract in no way affects the
application of Directive 77/187/EEC. The aim of Directive 92/50/EEC is not to allow economic entities to
be taken over at the expense of employees(cid:146) rights, but to ensure that there is a level playing field for
service providers wishing to compete for the award of a particular contract. The aim of this Directive is
essentially to guarantee that the competition rules applied are the same for all economic operators, but in
no way does it require Member States to contravene employees(cid:146) rights (1). Moreover, it should be noted
that the provision of a crŁche constitutes a service within the meaning of Annex I B of the Directive,
which provides for a (cid:145)restricted(cid:146) system for the award of a contract.

Finally, claims for redress for employees whose rights may have been ignored may be brought before the
national courts according to the conditions set out in the Member States(cid:146) legislation.

(1) See the Opinion of Mr Advocate General Philippe L(cid:201)GER in case C-172/99.

(2001/C 174 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3807/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Illegal deductions of aid for farmers

In its report on the 1999 financial year the Court of Auditors has found that in Greece the Community aid
paid to producers at both central government and local levels is subject to deductions which are not
permitted by any Community legislation. Deductions of the order of 1 % are made in respect of aid for
olive oil producers in favour of the National Federation of Olive Oil Producers and deductions of the order
of 3 % (some Drs. 17 billion) in respect of olive oil, tobacco and cotton producers in favour of the Greek
Agricultural Insurance Organisation (ELGA).

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/149

What measures will the Commission take to ensure that Community aid is paid in full to those entitled to
it without the slightest financial deduction being made in Greece, in accordance with Community rules?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2001)

It is true that in Greece there are several deductions of the Community aid, either at central level (e.g.
Agricultural Insurance Fund, Elaiourgiki (cid:129) Union of the olive oil producers organisations, etc.) or at local
level (e.g. producers organisations etc.).

The Greek authorities have claimed that these amounts have to be considered as contributions of the
producers because they have an apparent compensating effect; in the case of deductions by the producers
organisations, that these have been decided by the general assemblies of their members.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support
schemes under the common agricultural policy (1), which applies from 1 January 2000, has introduced a
clear (cid:145)full payment(cid:146) requirement (Article 2) for all the support schemes indicated in its Annex, including
olive oil and tobacco but not cotton.

The Commission is examining the nature and the size of the deductions, as well as the arguments of the
Greek authorities. Where appropriate,
it will follow the normal clearance procedure with a view to
applying financial corrections.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 174 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3808/00

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Lettori

In a letter from President Prodi(cid:146)s Private Office dated 24 October 2000 to Mr David Petrie, Chairman of
The Association of Foreign Lecturers in Italy, the Commission states that (cid:145)only Italian law may regulate
professional status within Italian universities(cid:146). Is it therefore the Commission(cid:146)s view that no Italian law
whatsoever could be contrary to the norms of European Community law? Would this not be contrary to
the principles of supremacy and direct effect?

Will the Commission please confirm that legislation adopted by Italy or by any other Member State may
have to be disapplied where there is conflict with Treaty law or other binding Community norms? Will the
Commission please state why it considers the Italian law No 236/95 to be in conformity with Union law
in respect of its impact on the rights of lettori? Is the mere fact that this law deals with university posts
deemed in Italy to be civil service posts a bar to any Community control?

Finally, will the Commission state what action it is taking in response to Parliament(cid:146)s resolution of
27 October 2000?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the general principle of Community law would
prescribe the non-application of any piece of national legislation which contravenes European law.