WRITTEN QUESTION E-3202/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission. Aerospace Industry's recovery from the terrorist attacks of 11 September.
Date: 2001-11-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, aerospace industry, air transport, economic consequence, report, terrorism

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/239

the memorandum was of

As indicated in his question, the Honourable Member was one of eight Members who wrote to the Vice-
President of the Commission responsible for Personnel and Administration and to the Commissioner
responsible for OLAF on 11 July 2001 asking them to ensure that the author of the memorandum was
allowed to complete his compilation of this document. In this letter, the Honourable Member asserted that
the author of
to give [the
Commissioners in charge of OLAF and of Personnel and Administration] the opportunity to familiarise
[themselves] with these cases and to address the problems raised by them’. The Honourable Member
himself appeared to agree with this, saying that he was ‘sure [the author’s] only aim is to give [these
Commissioners] the opportunity to find a lasting solution to the cases’ and that ‘this report could prove
important to [these Commissioners’] attempts to find a lasting solution for the problems concerned’.
Against that background of fact, the Honourable Member will surely recognise that it was therefore
necessary for the Commissioner to be informed of the developments in order to ‘familiarise’ himself and to
‘address the problems’.

it would be ‘wrong not

the opinion that

That need to be informed is strengthened by the fact, that in accordance with the Commission decision of
January 1998 on the exercise of the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations on the appointing
authority, the Commissioner in charge of Personnel and Administration is appointing authority for certain
senior grades of officials and consequently has responsibility for any decision relating to any possible
disciplinary proceedings relating to such officials. When allegations relating to officials are made, therefore,
the Commissioner is provided with the relevant information automatically and necessarily, and not in
response to any request or as a result of any effort or intention to ‘claim priority’.

Since all relevant material has been deposited with OLAF, and since OLAF undertakes its examinations of
material 4 under the terms of the 1999 Regulation and the Commission Decision implementing it 4 in a
manner which is completely separate and independent
from any other person or organisation, no
Commissioner nor anyone else is, or could be, in a position to ‘pre-empt’ or otherwise intervene in a way
that prejudices the examination or any recommendations arising from it. In addition, no Commissioner
would seek to be in that position.

The Director-General of DG Personnel and Administration and the Director of OLAF are fully aware of the
identity of the very limited number of persons who have a copy of the memorandum and their possession
of a copy is necessitated and fully justified by their explicit duties. The Commission strongly rejects
insinuations that any of its Members or their offices would seek to prematurely spread or otherwise harm
the information contained in this document. There is no foundation for such a claim or inference.

Decisions about any formal investigations will be taken in the proper fashion when the verification of the
contents of the memorandum by OLAF and DG Personnel and Administration has been completed.

(2002/C 115 E/258)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3202/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: Aerospace Industry’s recovery from the terrorist attacks of 11 September

What representations has the Commission received from the aerospace industry about the downturn they
are suffering after the terrorist attack on 11 September?

Is the Commission considering any package of measures to assist the industry?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2002)

The Commission has received information from industry sources about the effects of the terrorist attacks
of 11 September 2001 on individual aerospace manufacturers, notably in relation to the downturn in the

C 115 E/240

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

It is not considering any package of measures to assist the aerospace industry
air transport sector.
following the attacks, nor has it received representations from the European aerospace industry to request
any such package. Nevertheless, the Commission recalls the importance of creating an economic and
political framework within which the competitiveness of this industry can be fostered. In that context,
prior to the recent downturn in air transport and aerospace, an Advisory Group on Aerospace ‘STAR 21’
was launched, comprising the interested Members of the Commission, the Union’s High Representative for
the Common Foreign and Security Policy, key aerospace industry Chairmen and Members of
the
Parliament. The group, which is expected to report in the first half of 2002, will analyse the adequacy of
the existing political and regulatory framework for aerospace in Europe, highlight deficiencies, and make
proposals for further improvement.

(2002/C 115 E/259)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3203/01

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: Transfer of Ericsson branch to the El.Man group

Knowing that:

4 between 1995 and 1997, prior to the sale of the Pagani plant, Ericsson initiated what its workers

called a ‘pre-sale process’,

4 in June 1998, the company told the trade unions that it intended to split up the production activities
into a printed circuit board branch, to be called PCB SpA, and an assembly branch, to be called PBA
SpA, both of which would then be transferred,

4 in January 1999, after six months of talks, PCB SpA was transferred to the El.Man group in Corropoli,

4 however, owing to a lack of investment by Ericsson, the facilities and machines inherited by the new
totally obsolete and thus represented a serious risk both to production

company were almost
operations and to the health of the workforce,

4 the industrial plan and labour agreements concluded made provision for more intensive investment

and sounder guarantees than those offered by the two companies,

4 under the agreement which it signed with El.Man, Ericsson guaranteed that it would cover any
financial losses incurred by El.Man until 31 December 2000, while the labour agreements guaranteed
that employment levels would be maintained for five years.

Given that Ericsson:

4 has ignored repeated requests from the local trade unions to set up the oversight committee which

was to monitor implementation of the industrial plan and labour agreements concluded,

4 has failed to check that the printed circuit boards required for the products ordered from PBA SpA are

being produced by PCB SpA,

4 and has almost totally cut off orders since March 2001, as a result of which a dispute has arisen
between the local trade unions and PCB SpA over the latter’s request to lay off workers under the
Italian wage-compensation scheme (CIG straordinaria ed ordinaria),
the labour
agreements signed,

in breach of

how does the Commission intend to obviate the adverse effects of the above situation?