WRITTEN QUESTION P-1480/02 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Intervention against trade union blockade.
Date: 2002-05-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community acquis, Estonia, Finland, agreement (EU), carrier, infringement procedure (EU), maritime transport, trade union

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/213

3.

4.

Are these reports accessible to Members of the European Parliament and the general public?

Has the Commission drawn up a summary of the reports received?

Does the Commission know to what extent the directive is implemented in practical administration

5.
in the Member States?

Does the Commission know of any infringements of these rules in any of the Member States which

6.
have resulted in legal action and, possibly, convictions at national level or in the Court of Justice?

(1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12.

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

the Member States have now transposed Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the

All
protection of young people at work.

In 2001, a document was drawn up setting out the real situation regarding the transposition of Directive
94/33/EC in the 15 Member States of the Union. The Commission is sending a copy of this report directly
to the Honourable Member and to the General Secretariat of the Parliament.

Moreover, in a letter dated 6 November 2001, the Commission asked all the Member States to send it,
implementation within the meaning of Article 17(4) of
without delay, the national report on practical
Directive 94/33/EC. The national reports of most of the Member States have now been received. A
reminder letter was sent to the other Member States on 3 May 2002.

In accordance with Article 17(4) and (5) of the Directive, the national reports and the Commission’s report
will be submitted to Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee, in principle during
the last quarter of 2002.

(2002/C 277 E/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1480/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Intervention against trade union blockade

(22 May 2002)

At the beginning of the year, the Commission intervened on behalf of an Estonian shipping company
against two Finnish trade unions. The background was that the trade unions, in full compliance with
Finnish law, had blockaded an Estonian ship. The trade unions were demanding that the Estonian Shipping
Company (Esco) should respect Finnish agreements.

How does the Commission justify its intervention and on what legal basis did it act? Does the Commission
consider that it has the right to intervene in legal trade union disputes?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2002)

On 31 January 2002, the Commission opened an infringement procedure against Finland because of its
failure to take any measure to prevent/reduce the effects of several boycott actions undertaken by the
Finnish Unions against the ships of an Estonian shipowner. Prior to taking this action, the Commission
had repeatedly encouraged Finnish and Estonian authorities to resolve this issue bilaterally.

C 277 E/214

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

The present infringement procedure is based on the Europe Agreement between Estonia and the Union of
1997. Under that agreement the parties took the commitment of ensuring shipowners established in their
territories freedom to provide maritime services. The Europe Agreement is part of the acquis commun-
autaire and is therefore binding on all Member States.

The infringement procedure regards the behaviour of a Member State and not the relations between
individuals or organisations.

The monitoring of application of Community law is a mission attributed to the Commission by the
Treaties (Article 211 of the EC Treaty). At present, the Commission is analysing the reply from the Finnish
authorities.

(2002/C 277 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1485/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: The Isla de Tabarca (Alicante) bolding project inquiry

(29 May 2002)

In this reply to Question E-2800/01 (1), the Commission acknowledged the enormous importance of the
‘Isla de Tabarca’ SCI in environmental terms and the posidonia beds it shelters. In the wake of my
criticisms of tourism-related building projects in the protected area, the Commission announced that it was
opening an inquiry to find out whether the Spanish authorities were protecting the SCI properly, and
whether Directive 92/43/EEC (2) (habitats) was being infringed.

Can the Commission tell me what stage this inquiry has reached, and tell me the contents of any reply
received from the Spanish authorities?

What action is the Commission to protect the ‘Isla de Tabarca’ SCI?

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 161.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2002)

The Spanish authorities replied to the Commission’s request for information, indicating that the Island of
Tabarca has been protected since 1984 by a ‘special plan’ which classifies the walled town as urban land
and the isthmus as a service area, while completely protecting the countryside and prohibiting all types of
building. At present, the municipality of Alicante is trying to alter the plan, but the Coastal Department of
the Ministry of the Environment has not approved the alterations.

The Island of Tabarca was classified as a Site of Community Importance (SIC) by the Spanish authorities in
1997, owing to the presence of large posidonia beds, a priority habitat.

The Spanish authorities point out that the projects referred to in the written question involve the
in
construction of two buildings for which authorisation was granted in 1996 and 1998 respectively,
accordance with the ‘special plan’ in force. They also state that all necessary measures have been adopted
to ensure compliance with the provisions of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of wild fauna and flora. They have indeed adopted management plans which meet the
ecological requirements of natural habitats of Community importance, and preventive and corrective
measures to prevent the deterioration of such habitats.