WRITTEN QUESTION E-3435/01 by Terence Wynn (PSE) to the Commission. Old style UK driving licences.
Date: 2001-12-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, Spain, United Kingdom, driving licence, mutual recognition principle

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/179

the impact which such extraction would have on the ecosystem of the two areas concerned, bearing in
mind Directive 85/337/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment?

It should be recalled that, in 1994, the Spanish government department responsible for coasts had to back
down on a similar project in Cala Agulla (Majorca), since the environmental impact study carried out by
the Spanish Government was seriously flawed: mistakes in the maps drawn up led to sand being extracted
in areas colonised by posidonia.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

The Commission was not aware of the facts raised by the Honourable Member.

Projects consisting in the extraction of sand, such as the one mentioned by the Honourable Member, may
fall within the scope of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (1), as amended by Council
Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment (2), since they are listed in Annex II thereof 7 point 2 c),
‘extraction of
minerals by marine or fluvial dredging’.

Pursuant to the above Directive, Member States shall determine through a case-by-case examination,
thresholds or criteria or a combination of both approaches whether a project listed in Annex II shall be
made subject to an assessment in accordance with articles 5-10 of the Directive. For this purpose, Member
States shall take into account the selection criteria set out in Annex III of the Directive, which refer to the
characteristics of the project, its location and the characteristics of the potential impact. Member States
shall ensure that the determination made by the competent authorities is made available to the public.

As the Honourable Member requests, the Commission intends to remind the Spanish authorities of the
provisions of the above mentioned Council Directives in order to ensure that they are taken into account,
should a concrete project result from the announcement of the Spanish Environment Ministry.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2002/C 147 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3435/01

by Terence Wynn (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: Old style UK driving licences

It would seem that Spain no longer recognises the old green UK driving licence. It will now only accept
the new style driving licence, which includes a photograph of the driver. Can the Commission indicate
whether or not it is legal for Spain to refuse to accept valid UK driving licences?

Anwer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2002)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991, on driving licences (1) stipulates in article 1(2), that driving
licences issued by Member States shall be recognised.

Commission decision 2000/275/EC of 21 March 2000 on equivalences between certain categories of
driving licences (2) specifies in its first recital that directive 91/439/EEC provides that all driving licences

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 7 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).