WRITTEN QUESTION E-1309/02 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Closure of the Fontaneda biscuit factory in Aguilar de Campoo (Palencia, Spain).
Date: 2002-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, Spain, application of EU law, business ethics, business policy, company buyout, socioeconomic conditions, transfer of businesses, worker participation

C 301 E/120

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

from Directive 92/43/EEC,

the issues raised by the Honourable Member might also involve
Apart
infringement of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the impact of certain
public and private projects on the environment (2), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of
3 March 1997 (3), and of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-
accident hazards involving dangerous substances (4).

The European Commission will make enquiries to ascertain whether the reported plans are incompatible
with the above Community provisions and,
it will take appropriate measures to ensure
if necessary,
compliance with Community environmental law.

The Commission would at the same time ask the Honourable Member to forward all the information at his
disposal in order to facilitate its investigation.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(4) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.

(2002/C 301 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1309/02

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Closure of the Fontaneda biscuit factory in Aguilar de Campoo (Palencia, Spain)

The multinational United Biscuits has decided to close the Fontaneda biscuit factory in Palencia arbitrarily
and without previously informing the works council of its intentions or negotiating the decision to dismiss
the employees. Its argument is that the factory has ceased to be viable and is unprofitable. However,
United Biscuits has decided that the production of Fontaneda biscuits is to be absorbed by its factories in
Navarre and the Basque Country, where the financial incentives would bring the company larger profits.
The closure is a veritable disaster for the workers and the town, which has a population of 7 000, and will
bring the whole district to financial ruin. Neighbouring towns have already suffered from the crisis in
mining, agriculture and industry and the population is decreasing and ageing inexorably. At least another
five businesses with more than 1 500 employees closed in the Autonomous Region of Castille and Leon in
2001 and the rate of unemployment is below the national average.

The closure of the factory is due to a company relocating within the EU in search of financial incentives
which in this case are having an adverse effect on employment.

Can the Commission say whether it is compatible with Community legislation that a multinational should
purchase the María Fontaneda biscuit business and then close the factory and take production elsewhere?

Does the Commission consider that a viable solution might be for the workers to retain the brand name,
as the Castille and Leon regional executive suggested, and turn the factory into a co-operative, which could
benefit from regional, national and European aid?

What steps will the Commission take to ensure compliance with Community legislation, in particular
Directive 98/59/EC (1) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective
redundancies and Directive 94/45/EC (2) on a procedure
in Community-scale undertakings and
Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees?

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16.
(2) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/121

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to oral question H-312/02 by
Mrs Rodríguez Ramos during question time at Parliament’s May 2002 session (1).

While the Commission appreciates the contribution to employment creation and maintenance which
activities in the social economy, such as co-operatives, can make, it is not in a position to comment on the
specific proposal made by the Honourable Member. The question of aid for any such project would be a
matter, in the first instance, for the relevant national authorities.

(1) Written reply, 14.5.2002.

(2002/C 301 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1313/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Swedish exemption for hemp seed

At the present time, there are no provisions governing the cultivation of hemp in Swedish legislation. On
27 April 1999, Sweden notified an exemption for hemp seed pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EEC)
No 334/93 (1) laying down detailed implementing rules for the use of land set aside for the provision of
materials for the manufacture within the Community of products not primarily intended for human or
animal consumption. According to the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, the notification has
not been answered and, according to the provisions of
the Regulation, has therefore received the
Commission’s approval.

Does the Commission share the view that it is therefore correct that Sweden need not incorporate any
provisions concerning the cultivation of hemp into Swedish law?

(1) OJ L 38, 16.2.1993, p. 12.

(2002/C 301 E/127)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1315/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Swedish ban on cultivation of low-THC hemp

(8 May 2002)

In view of the importance of protecting people’s lives and health by taking measures to combat drug
misuse, and of the obvious difficulties of carrying out checks involved in authorising the cultivation of
low-THC hemp, the Swedish Government has considered it warranted not to allow such cultivation in the
country. The Swedish Government and a large majority in the Swedish Riksdag have no intention of
altering the Swedish rules at the present time.

However, the Swedish ban on hemp-growing is currently under consideration in the Court of Justice and
Sweden may possibly be compelled by a court judgment to review its decision. Can the Commission
envisage submitting a proposal to the Council for a decision which gives the Member States the right to
make their own decisions whether to authorise or ban the cultivation of low-THC hemp?