WRITTEN QUESTION P-3451/01 by Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Threatened closure of the Wärtsilä factory in Zwolle and suspected secret agreements on job guarantees in connection with the takeover of the Wärtsilä factory in Trieste.
Date: 2001-12-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Finland, Italy, Netherlands, State aid, control of State aid, dismissal, engine, transfer of businesses

C 147 E/180

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

issued by Member States,
legislation, have to be mutually recognised.

including those issued before implementation of that Directive in national

Therefore, all driving licences from Member States that are still valid in the issuing country have to be
recognised in the other Member States.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
(2) OJ L 91, 12.4.2000.

(2002/C 147 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3451/01

by Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Subject: Threatened closure of the Wärtsilä factory in Zwolle and suspected secret agreements on job

guarantees in connection with the takeover of the Wärtsilä factory in Trieste

The Finnish engine manufacturer Wärtsilä has recently decided to transfer the whole of its production, in
spite of the fact that it makes a profit and has a full order book, from its establishment at Zwolle
(Netherlands) to its establishment in Trieste (Italy). This means the immediate loss of 700 jobs and possibly
the disappearance of hundreds more jobs with suppliers. Since this closure is not being done directly
because of trading results, it is to be feared that improper motives may be involved.

Millions of guilders have been provided in recent years by national and local authorities and the European
Investment Bank in subsidies and development loans. In addition to the serious loss of jobs, this relocation
also means an enormous loss of capital and the draining away of know-how developed thanks to Dutch
development loans.

In the short term, will the Commission investigate and report on what agreements have been made
between the Italian Government and Wärtsilä in connection with the latter’s takeover of the former state
undertaking in Trieste 8 agreements on guaranteed jobs (for the 1 800 staff) or other agreements which in
some way led to the improper relocation of production from one Wärtsilä establishment to another?

Will the Commission also examine what financial and non-financial incentives were provided by the Italian
government, via European funds or otherwise, in order to facilitate this improper relocation of production?

Does the Commission agree that this is an instance of the improper use of financial and other incentives
and an example of subsidy shopping? If so, will the Commission take counter-measures, including the
suspension of the relocation pending its investigation?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2002)

The Commission is not aware of any agreements having been concluded between the Italian authorities
and Wärtsilä, but it will seek information from the Italian authorities. Should any such agreements include
state aid measures, it will examine them in the light of Article 87 (former Article 92) of the EC Treaty. The
Wärtsilä establishment at San Dorligo della Valle is located in a region eligible for regional aid pursuant to
the exemption provided for in Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty. Under its decision of 20 June 2001, the
Commission can authorise regional aid amounting to 8 % of the investment, measured in terms of net
grant equivalent (nge). Moreover, it may be that the provisions approved by the Commission relating to
employment, training or other types of aid are applicable here. Such aid measures are compatible with the
EC Treaty if they are based on aid schemes approved by the Commission or are exempted under the
relevant rules (training/SME/de minimis).

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/181

As for incentives under European funds, the Commission can state that Wärtsilä did not receive any aid
from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) but from the European Social Fund (ESF) as part of
the 1997-1999 SPD in support of vocational training.

Given that the Commission has not found proof of the illegal use of financial or other incentives, it cannot
reply to the Honourable Member’s last question. The general purpose of Commission aid is to alleviate the
negative effects on competition of aid granted by national authorities. ‘Subsidy shopping’ is one example of
the negative impact of state aid on competition and should, therefore, be avoided. If an investigation
shows that Wärtsilä received aid incompatible with the Treaty, the Commission will take the necessary
measures and will, where appropriate, recover the aid illegally paid. It does not have the power to demand
that Wärtsilä suspend its relocation decision, even during the investigation.

(2002/C 147 E/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3453/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: The sardine-canning industry and designations of origin

(6 December 2001)

The sardine-canning industry is under enormous pressure, owing to an increase in low-price imports and
the difficulties it experiences in securing regular supplies of
its raw materials. These factors are
compounded by a new one, namely competition from imports of products which, although not sardines,
pass as such, thereby confusing consumers, undermining the quality of the product and creating unfair
competition.

The marketing rules laid down in Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 (1) clearly state that only
products prepared exclusively from fish of the species Sardina pilchardus Walbaum may be marketed as
preserved sardines. However, it appears that Latin American countries, in particular Peru, are exporting
products described as ‘Pacific sardines’ or as being ‘sardine-style’, which are derived from a different species
(Sardinops sagax) and are sold at prices well below Community ones. It may be recalled that, at the WTO
conference in Doha, very little progress was made on protecting designations of origin.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?

8 Can it confirm the above facts and, if so, indicate what action it is taking in order to remedy this state

of affairs?

8 What does it think of the idea of setting up a Community reference laboratory for the purpose of
checking the quality of fisheries products (including imports) and the rules under which they are
marketed within the EU?

8 What does it think of the idea of establishing a temporary scheme for the payment of compensation

and/or consumption aid to the sardine-canning industry?

(1) OJ L 212, 22.7.1989, p. 79.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2002)

Peru and Venezuela have complained on several occasions about Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2136/89 of
21 June 1989, laying down common marketing standards for preserved sardines as they consider that by
prohibiting the marketing of their ‘sardinops’ (Peru) and ‘sardinella aurita’ (Venezuela) under the trade
description ‘sardine of Peru/Venezuela’, the Community is acting in breach of the Codex Alimentarius
standard and in breach of Article III General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).