WRITTEN QUESTION E-2252/02 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Community support.
Date: 2002-07-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, competence of the Member States, jurisdiction, textile industry, transfer of businesses, unfair dismissal, union representative, worker information

C 28 E/210

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

Within the framework of the competitive and sustainable growth programme concerning the period
1998-2002, the Commission initiated the research programme Whiplash II, following on from the Brite-
Euram III project (which was Whiplash I).

As part of Whiplash I, a RID-2 (Rear Impact Dummy) test dummy was developed by the TNO (Dutch
Organisation for Applied Scientific Research) in Delft, based on the dummy currently used in frontal
impact testing. This dummy is intended to be used in low and mid-severity rear-end collision testing and
further investigation is still necessary to confirm whether it could be validated for frontal impact too.

Some results of Whiplash I and of some National research studies are likely to be used in the context of
the EURO-NCAP (European New Car Assessment Programme) programme. This programme aims to
provide consumers with an independent assessment of the safety performances of cars sold in Europe.

The Whiplash II research programme, which started in March 2001, will continue until March 2004. It
covers different aspects such as:

(cid:1) accident analyses in order to develop knowledge on the causes of injury and accident conditions in

which whiplash injuries occur;

(cid:1) human responses and injuries in laboratory conditions in order to develop criteria to be measured on

dummies;

(cid:1) development of an appropriate test method to be applied to vehicles (rear impact test).

When the results are available, they will be debated within international fora as the EEVC (European
Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee), the GRSP (Passive safety Working Party) of UN/ECE (United Nations/
Economic Committee for Europe) and IHRA (International Harmonisation of Research Activities).
In
addition to this programme, the United States’ National Highway Traffic Safety Agency is currently
studying improvements to its legislation in this area.

Since these important research programmes are still in progress, it is difficult to forecast the outcome and
the resultant
the Commission will consider technical
regulations as soon as the results are available.

introduction of new regulations. Nevertheless,

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 111.
(2) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002.

(2003/C 28 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2252/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Community support

Since 1 June 2002, following the transfer of the firm, the 100 workers employed by Asoni Ltd., a garment
manufacturer based in Cucujães, Oliveira de Azeméis, Portugal and owned by Asoni SA, based in Zurich,
Switzerland, have been working for a different firm, Cachoeira Confecções Ltd, which is based in Vila do
Conde but appears to be linked to the Asoni SA group.

The management of the new firm has now decided to dismiss six workers, including a trade union leader,
without any justification or compensation, which is unacceptable under both Portuguese and Community
law.

Can the Commission say whether it is aware of any Community support having been provided for the
firms concerned and, if so, what steps it will take to uphold the right to employment of all the employees?

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/211

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

In accordance with Article 8(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down
general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), the implementation of assistance is the responsibility of the
Member States, in application of the principle of subsidiarity. According to the information received from
the Portuguese authorities, the firm in question did not benefit from co-financing under the European
Regional Development Fund during the 1989-1993 and 1994-1999 programming periods.

As far as Community legislation applicable to the facts outlined by the Honourable Member regarding
dismissal is concerned, the Commission would like to point out that Directive 98/59/EC (2) would not
appear to apply in this case (3). Furthermore, under present Community law, questions relating to
individual dismissals, such as those raised by the Honourable Member, are in principle subject to the
national laws of the Member States.

However, the Commission would like to refer to Directive 2001/23/EC (4) which, in Article 4, provides that
the transfer of an undertaking, a business or a part of an undertaking or business shall not in itself
constitute grounds for dismissal by the transferor or the transferee. Nevertheless, this provision does not
stand in the way of dismissals that may take place for economic, technical or organisational reasons
entailing changes in the workforce.

Moreover, Article 6 of the said Directive lays down the conditions for the preservation of the status and
function of the representatives of the employees and for the protection of these representatives in the
event of the transfer of an undertaking.

In addition, Article 7 requires the transferor and the transferee to inform the representatives of their
respective employees affected by the transfer of, inter alia, the social implications of the transfer for the
employees and any measures envisaged in relation to the employees.

It is up to employees who consider themselves wronged by failure to comply with the obligations arising
from the Directive to pursue their claims, including through the courts, in the Member State concerned (5).

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2) Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to

collective redundancies (OJ L 225, 12.8.1998).

(3) Cf. Article 1(1)(a)(i), second indent thereof.
(4) Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of

to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of
undertakings or businesses (OJ L 82, 22.3.2001).
(5) Cf., in this respect, Article 9 of the said Directive.

(2003/C 28 E/241)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2260/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: Increase in the environmental damage caused by the Fervasa solid urban waste treatment plant in

Aldaia and Quart de Poblet

In my question E-2084/01 (1), I informed the Commission of the situation concerning the solid urban
waste treatment plant run by the company Fervasa on the outskirts of the municipalities of Aldaia and
Quart de Poblet. Besides being obsolete and working at overcapacity, the Fervasa plant fails to comply with
legal provisions (on planning and licences) and has a range of serious impacts on the environment, which
were described in detail both in my question E-2084/01 and in the technical report drawn up by the
Aldaia municipal council and then forwarded to the Commission. Of these environmental impacts, the
following require an urgent solution: noxious smells, leaching, airborne waste, excessive lorry traffic and
the devaluation of land.