WRITTEN QUESTION P-1481/02 by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission. Neutralisation of the EU's structural policies and closure of the public company Cetarsa in Granada.
Date: 2002-05-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Grenada, cessation of trading, economic and social cohesion, less-favoured region, public sector, structural policy

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/157

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2002)

The Commission is aware of the growing phenomenon of identity theft (misuse of personal data and
1.
bank facilities of an individual) which, in the United States and Canada, threatens the financial sector.
Presentations and a discussion on identity theft recently took place within the Fraud Prevention Expert
Group, the steering group for the implementation of the Action Plan to prevent fraud and counterfeiting
of non cash payments (1).

2.
At the moment, statistics covering the whole financial sector are available only in the United
Kingdom, where identity theft is the fastest growing fraud with an increase of 165 % from 1999 to 2001
(where 53 000 cases were recorded).

3.

No, but Europol participated in the above mentioned meeting.

The Union’s legal framework on personal data protection consists of two Directives namely a general
4.
Directive and a sector specific telecommunications Directive (2). Both include provisions to limit and
protect the processing of personal data, also over the Internet. These Directives determine the scope and
nature of legitimate processing of personal data, impose security measures and require the establishment of
adequate judicial and other remedies in case of infringements. The limits to the collection and further use
of personal data are in general terms much more strict in the Union than in the United States.

Security breaches at e-commerce merchant databases where hackers gain access to customers’ personal
data and credit card numbers, are also cause for great concern. Preventive measures, such as security
requirements for online merchants accepting payment cards, are discussed under the above mentioned
Fraud Prevention Action Plan. Furthermore,
in addition to the Framework Decision of 28 May 2001
combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment (3), action to increase Internet security
has also been undertaken. Finally, on 19 April 2002 the Commission proposed a Framework Decision on
attacks against information systems (4), which addresses the new most significant forms of criminal activity
against
information systems and encourages information security, while ensuring that Europe’s law
enforcement authorities can take action against this type of cybercrime.

(1) Communication from the Commission ‘Preventing fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment’,

COM(2001) 11 final, http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/finances/payment/fraud/index.htm.

(2) Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with
regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 281, 23.11.1995; and
Directive 97/66/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of
personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector, OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, to be updated
and replaced by a new Directive that will be formally adopted by the Parliament and the Council in July 2002.

(3) OJ L 149, 2.6.2001.
(4) COM(2002) 173 final.

(2002/C 301 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1481/02

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(22 May 2002)

Subject: Neutralisation of the EU’s structural policies and closure of the public company Cetarsa in Granada

inflict socio-economic harm on a seriously
In view of the fact that the closure of this company will
disadvantaged area, in the Objective 1 province with the lowest income levels in Spain, where the EU has
been investing large amounts of aid so as to stabilise the social fabric; given that the factory in question is
highly profitable, and its closure is a source of concern both to the 1 500 families who live from tobacco
growing and the 32 local authorities affected; given the plans to privatise and relocate this company with
following an investment of over
231 employees, equipped with the most up to date machinery,

C 301 E/158

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

12 000 million pesetas; given the enormous town-planning value of the 66 000 square metres the factory
occupies, which will give rise to financial transactions that will profit the most- advantaged sections of the
population; and given that the Chairman of the SEPI, when he appeared before parliament to report on the
closure of the Cetarsa factory in Granada, claimed that the reasons were due to the EU, arguing on the
basis of non-existent laws and studies which the Commission denies possessing: Does the Commission not
believe that this closure is counterproductive, in view of the irreparable socio-economic harm it will do,
neutralising and prejudicing the EU’s structural policies?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2002)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern over the possible closure of the Cetarsa plant in
Granada and the consequent loss of jobs. However, it can intervene in the industrial policy of a Member
State only where Community rules have been infringed; decisions on the closure of a firm, whether public
or private, are a matter for its managers.

Alongside the short-term impact of the closure of a firm, the Commission would draw attention to the
long-term impact of its structural policy. In the case of Andalusia, Community assistance under the
integrated operational programme for 2000-2006 includes the creation or preservation of an average of
some 96 000 jobs per year.

(2002/C 301 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1486/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Sand extraction in the ‘Serra Gelada y Litoral de al Marína Baixa’

(Valencian autonomous

community) SCI

Various beach regeneration schemes are under way within the Valencian Autonomous Community using
sand extracted from the Serra Gelada y Litoral de al Marína Baixa’ (Valencian Autonomous Community)
SCI. These extraction operations could seriously affect the posidonia beds in the area which were the very
reason that it was designated a Site of Community Interest in the first place.

Given that:

(cid:1) the posidonia beds appear in Annex I of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) (Habitats);

(cid:1) Serra Gelada posidonia beds have been suffering from the impact of inadequately treated waste water
discharges and, have been seriously affected by the failure to carry out the extension of the Benidorm
purification plant as a matter of urgency;

(cid:1) there is no environmental impact assessment for the sand extraction operations, since the Spanish
authorities, on the basis of ‘transposition law’ 6/2001, which leaves such assessment optional for
extractions of over 500 000 m3, did not require an environmental impact assessment to be carried out
(although such an assessment is in fact obligatory under Valencian law 2/1999);

(cid:1) above all, the fact that since the area was declared an SCI, the legal provisions which apply are

Directive 97/11/EC (2) (former 85/337/EEC (3)) on environmental impact,

Does the Commission not believe that the sand extraction operations in Serra Gelada clearly contravene
Directive 97/11/EEC and 92/43/EEC and that since this an SCI area, the Spanish authorities are under an
obligation to carry out the requisite environmental impact association, which they have so far refused to
do, in order to know exactly what the impact on the posidonia beds of the work being carried out will be?