WRITTEN QUESTION P-1663/01 by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission. Danish job rotation system.
Date: 2001-06-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, EU aid, employment policy, fight against unemployment, job creation

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/207

The Commission will follow very closely the future developments in the PPG7 with a special consideration
for its impact on indigenous communities. Other important actions are also being taken in favour of
indigenous peoples within the framework of the Commission(cid:146)s non-governmental organisations (NGO)
budget line.

(2001/C 350 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1663/01

by Ulla Sandb(cid:230)k (EDD) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Danish job rotation system

Can the Commission specify where, in its view, the problems lie in the revised Danish job rotation system
which entered into force at the turn of the year?

Can the Commission confirm that it believes that arrangements which target specific groups, such as the
disadvantaged unemployed, cannot be approved as they distort competition?

Can the Commission say when Denmark is expected to receive an answer on this matter?

Will the Commission provide me with a copy of its answer when available?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2001)

The scheme combines recruitment of a new employee in a company with training of an existing employee.
The procedure is that an employee of a company is sent on training. At the same time, an unemployed
person is hired to replace the person on training. When the training is over, the trainee comes back to
another job and the newly hired person may stay on.

There are two different grants. Firstly, if the trainee receives a salary during the training, the employer
receives a grant covering part of that salary cost. If the trainee does not receive a salary during the training,
the grant goes to the trainee directly. Secondly, the employer receives a grant to cover part of the salary
costs for the person employed. This grant is intended to compensate for the lower productivity of the
disadvantaged workers hired under the scheme. Originally,
the Danish authorities had the
intention to allow non-disadvantaged workers to be hired in so-called (cid:145)bottle-neck sectors(cid:146), which are
sectors in which, in spite of general unemployment, it is difficult to find qualified workers.

though,

According to the Community guidelines on aid to employment (1) the Commission will be favourably
disposed towards aid to create new jobs in small and medium-sized organisations (SMEs) and in regions
eligible for regional aid. Outside these two categories, it will also look favourably upon aid to encourage
firms to take on certain groups of workers experiencing particular difficulties entering or re-entering the
labour market (point 21 first indent). This is why the Commission, during informal contacts with the
Danish authorities, pointed out that it could not approve aid to companies hiring non-disadvantaged
workers in bottle-neck sectors. The situation was therefore the opposite of the one suggested in the
question. The Danish authorities have agreed to amend the scheme so that it only involves disadvantaged
workers. This means that the employment side of the job rotation scheme is covered by an already
approved employment aid scheme.

C 350 E/208

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

On 11 April 2001, the Danish authorities notified the training side of the scheme. They claim that the
training grant is administered as a so-called general measure and therefore does not constitute State aid.
For a measure to be a general measure, it must not favour certain enterprises or the production of certain
goods, there may be no sectoral or regional limits or preferences, the State may not have any discretionary
powers, and there may not be any budgetary restrictions. The Commission is currently investigating
whether all these criteria are fulfilled in the present case and has requested the necessary additional
information from the Danish authorities. Once all
the information has been submitted, and the
notification can be considered to be complete, the Commission has two months to adopt a final decision.
The decision can then be found, in Danish, at the following internet address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/
secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/.

(1) OJ C 334, 12.12.1995.

(2001/C 350 E/228)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1672/01

by Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Defibrillators on short haul flights

Could the Commission confirm whether there is any EU initiative currently in progress relating to the
carrying of life saving equipment (with particular reference to the availability of defibrillators on short-haul
flights) on civil aircraft carrying passengers?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2001)

The obligation to carry defibrillators on commercial aircraft is among the operational requirements which
may be imposed on aircraft operators.

The Commission has placed a proposal before Parliament and the Council for the adoption of operational
requirements for the commercial exploitation of aircraft (1) but it does not include such an obligation.

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission has based its proposal on the work of the Joint
Aviation Authorities (JAA) and has emphasised that it does not wish to call the experts(cid:146) conclusions with
regard to safety into question. A large number of Members of Parliament supported this viewpoint during
the debates on the above proposal.

Now that the US Administration has adopted a regulation requiring defibrillators to be carried on some
commercial aircraft, the subject will be coming up for discussion within the JAA. The Commission will
take account of the conclusions with a view to possibly amending its proposal.

(1) OJ C 311, 31.10.2000.

(2001/C 350 E/229)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1676/01

by Jaime Valdivielso de CuØ (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Shipbuilding industry

On 8 May 2001 the Commission at last proposed, in view of the unfair competition which has been
practised for years now by South Korea, as described in its fourth report on the industry, that the matter
should be brought before the WTO on 30 June.