WRITTEN QUESTION P-0396/02 by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission. Economic and Social Committee (ESC).
Date: 2002-02-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Economic and Social Committee, consultation procedure, framework agreement, legislative procedure, social partners

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/25

Does the Commission consider that the parent-subsidiary contractual relations constitute a real and
sufficient division and separation of the WestLB in terms of the restructuring called for by the Commission
and does the Commission have a definite opinion on the future structure of the WestLB? If so, what is it?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

The Commission has received details of the envisaged split into a public-law mother company and
commercial daughter company of private legal form from the authorities of the Land of Northrhine-
Westfalia. The model is in principle in line with the State aid rules of the EC Treaty. Details are still being
investigated into.

The Commission is not yet aware of all details regarding the future structure of the balance sheet or of the
transfer contracts concerning staff and business relations between the mother and daughter company. To
the extent it will consider this necessary for State aid analysis, it will ask for such details.

The WestLB split-model, as presented to the Commission, constitutes in principle an effective and
sufficient solution to the State aid problems. The evaluation is not yet concluded as regards all details, e.g.
the public mortgage bond business within the public part and the modalities of repayment of the amount
to be recovered from the commercial activities pursuant the Commission decision of 8 July 1999 on the
WestLB/Wfa-capital transfer case.

(2003/C 28 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0396/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Economic and Social Committee (ESC)

Why does the Commission consult both the Economic and Social Committee and have a facility and a
duty under the terms of the Amsterdam Treaty to consult the social partners? What line does the
Commission take if the opinions of the two are contradictory? How is this justified?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

The role of the social partners in social dialogue is clearly defined by the EC Treaty, with Article 139
allowing management and labour to adopt
framework agreements which may be translated into
Community law if the social partners so request. Article 137 lays down the areas in which consultation
of the social partners is a prerequisite for the exercise of the Commission’s right of initiative. And
Article 138 sets out the arrangements for such consultation.

Reflecting practice in the various Member States, European social dialogue takes place between
autonomous social partners and leads to freely negotiated agreements.

By contrast, the Economic and Social Committee, whose members include representatives of the social
partners and other categories provided for by the EC Treaty, is primarily consulted in connection with the
legislative procedure. It is consulted by the Commission, the Council and Parliament when proposals are
being drafted or once they have been presented. Consultation is compulsory where provided for in the EC
Treaty and optional otherwise.

C 28 E/26

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

The Committee issues a single opinion, which is more of a synthesis of the various positions than the
result of negotiations between the social partners.

Clearly, because of the progressive enhancement of the role of the social partners and their desire to retain
their autonomy vis-à-vis an organisation in which they are represented, the composition and role of the
Committee are changing. This is clearly reflected in the Treaty of Nice, with the shift towards broader
representation of civil society and structures which do not essentially represent the social and economic
partners. At the same time, with the prospect of enlargement, the Committee has an important role to play
in preparing civil society in the candidate countries, particularly in those cases where the Association
Council has set up a joint economic and social consultative committee.

These will enhance the complementary nature of the two consultation processes,
partners and the Committee.

involving the social

(2003/C 28 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0409/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Enron

Following recent revelations and allegations in the USA and UK regarding political and financial links
between Government representatives and Enron, would the Commission please clarify what links, if any,
exist between it and this company?

In particular, which members of the College of Commissioners, or their Cabinets, have held meetings with
representatives of Enron or its advocates in the past five years, when did each of these meetings occur, and
was a record kept of the discussion?

What input has Enron had into the framing of EU energy policy and legislation, and what assurances can
the Commission provide that in no way was any undue or improper influence brought to bear on
Community policy by this company?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2002)

The Commission can give the Honourable Member the following information as regards meetings attended
by the Members of the Commission or members of their private offices in the course of their duties and at
the request of representatives of Enron or the firm’s lawyers:

(cid:1) in the field of competition,

in May 2000, a Cabinet member of the Commissioner in charge of
Competition took part in a meeting of the Commissioner’s services with representatives of ENRON on
current competition cases;

(cid:1) the field of energy, there has been no direct contact with the representatives of ENRON or the firm’s
lawyers. A former member of the private office of the Member of the Commission responsible for
Transport and Energy met a delegation from the European Federation of Energy Traders (EFET) in
December 2000, of which ENRON is one of 50 full members; the purpose of this meeting was to
obtain EFET’s reaction to the Energy Green Paper approved by the Commission in November 2000.

ENRON had no input in the framing of Community energy policy and legislation aside from providing its
views into the process, through normal contacts with the Commission services, in the same manner as all
similar companies, in the policy-areas concerned.

Moreover, the Commission wishes to emphasise that ENRON has made no financial contribution of any
kind to Commission activities.