WRITTEN QUESTION E-0906/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Workers' health and safety.
Date: 2001-03-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, application of EU law, infringement procedure (EU), labour law, working conditions

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/119

intervention in the Congo Robert Mugabe is regarded by some EU Member States as a negotiating partner
rather than an autocrat with no respect for human rights. Representatives of the Council and Commission
also met Robert Mugabe for talks.

What is the Council(cid:146)s attitude towards Robert Mugabe and the situation in Zimbabwe? Does it intend to
take specific action in the form of withdrawing aid in order to put pressure on the Mugabe regime, or does
it intend to confine itself to talk?

Reply

(16 July 2001)

The Council considers Robert Mugabe as a legally elected president of an independent country, but already
it expressed deep concern at the
in May last year before the Parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe,
breakdown in the rule of law in Zimbabwe, the ongoing violence,
illegal occupation of
loss of life,
property and the continuing political intimidation in the run up to the parliamentary elections.

During his recent visit to Europe, representatives of the Presidency on its own accord participated in
a lunch with the Commission and President Mugabe, but representatives of the Council did not meet with
President Mugabe for talks.

The General Affairs Council on 26/27 February 2001 had an exchange of views on Zimbabwe. It agreed
to take the necessary steps to propose to the government of Zimbabwe a comprehensive and balanced
dialogue. The Council also agreed to come back to this issue in due course.

The holding of a political dialogue with Zimbabwe under article 8 of the Cotonou agreement in line with
the Council conclusions, was proposed to Zimbabwe and is still awaiting a formal response from the
authorities. Under this dialogue the EU hopes that both parties will be able to promote a stable democratic
political environment in Zimbabwe and thereby also contribute to peace, security and stability in the
country. The EU wishes the dialogue to be comprehensive, balanced and deep and a forum for open and
forthright exchanges of views. It must also be seen as an evolving process.

EU aid to Zimbabwe does not cover budget support anymore, it does not contribute with aid to the
productive sectors, it has instead been refocused on the social sectors in order to protect human capital
during these difficult years for Zimbabwe. Disbursement of aid has dropped over the last three years, but
the Council has not discussed any withdrawal of aid to Zimbabwe.

The EU is of course also following the behaviour of Zimbabwe in the context of the application of the
Lusaka cease-fire agreement and the ongoing troop withdrawals in the DRC.

(2001/C 340 E/137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0906/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Workers(cid:146) health and safety

The Commission(cid:146)s reply to my Question No E-0339/00 (1) on adequate controls by the Member States in
compliance with Article 4(2) of framework Directive 89/391/EEC (2) on the improvement of the safety and
health of workers states that:
(cid:145)If specific data should reach the Commission, showing that national
administrations have failed in their obligations in this respect, the Commission would take appropriate
action, notably by opening infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, if required by the
results of the investigation of the specific case.(cid:146)

C 340 E/120

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

Since the problem is still acute, controls are still deficient and the Commission, according to its reply, has
been collecting information on the matter since 20 March 2000 and has also received specific complaints,
in the form of the complaint from the General Confederation of Greek Workers with reference number
00/4404, SAG2000 A/382828/2 and my Question No E-0014/00 (3):

1. When does the Commission intend to forward the information it has collected?

2. Why has it not opened infringement proceedings under Article 226 with the information on which

the complaints are based or which it has collected itself?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 178.
(2) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.
(3) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 158.

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The Commission would point out that an issue as complex as the adequacy of the controls and supervision
carried out by the Member States pursuant to Article 4(2) of framework Council Directive 89/391/EEC of
12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of
workers at work cannot be assessed without full, detailed information on the alleged dysfunction in the
system of control and supervision.

As far as the specific situation in Greece is concerned, the Commission requested further information from
the plaintiff following the complaint made by the General Confederation of Greek Workers. After receiving
this information, the Commission also sent a letter to the Greek Government requesting information on
the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work.
Although a reminder letter on this matter has been sent to the Greek authorities, they have not yet
provided the information requested by the Commission.

The information collected following the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question E-0339/00 (1) will be sent
separately to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat of the Parliament directly.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000.

(2001/C 340 E/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0909/01

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Changes in Spanish legislation on the electricity industry

(28 March 2001)

The Spanish Royal Decree Law 2/2001 of 2 February 2001 amends the wording of the Sixth Ttransitional
Provision of the Electricity Industry Act. The object of the exercise is to enable the Spanish Government to
delay the opening of the case relating to State aids to electricity companies in the form of costs of
transition to competition (CTCs). The new wording removes the most serious flaw in the earlier rules,
which established the entitlement to receive a sum of money irrespective of the trend in costs and the
energy price. Spanish consumers had been paying the sum in question by means of a 4,5 % surcharge on
the standard electricity rate, and the electricity companies have thus received some ESP 500 billion.

By altering the rule concerned, the Government has in effect accepted the Commission view, fully shared
by Spanish consumers and the questioner, that CTCs have been regulated in such a way as to constitute, in
principle, unnotified State aids.

The change may be purely cosmetic and designed to avert the proceedings because the many remaining
dubious points in the rules are continuing to strengthen the position of the existing electricity companies,
thus making it difficult for new firms to enter the market. For example, the present wording still grants the
right to compensation, the amount of which will be determined annually by the Government without