WRITTEN QUESTION E-3791/02 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Collective redundancies.
Date: 2003-01-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, cessation of trading, collective dismissal, interpretation of the law, job cuts, national implementing measure

C 155 E/188

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

(2003/C 155 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3787/02

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Artists’ rights

In the case of the United Kingdom artists’ equitable remuneration for their broadcast recordings are
negotiated and collected by the record labels’ collecting society, the Phonographic Performance Limited
(PPL). What European Union countries allow artists to participate in the negotiation process for their
remuneration?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2003)

The equitable remuneration paid by the user if a phonogram is used for broadcasting by wireless means
has been harmonised at Community level under Article 8 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of
19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the
field of intellectual property.

The Directive also stipulates that this remuneration is to be shared between performers and the producers
of phonograms. However, the Directive has not directly harmonised the negotiating methods or the
distribution formulae for this remuneration. It merely states that in the absence of agreement between the
beneficiaries, Member States may themselves lay down the conditions for the sharing of this remuneration.
Thus the Directive does not stipulate how the remuneration is to be collected and negotiated.

Generally speaking, performers participate in negotiations on the amount of the equitable remuneration.
However, many Member States have stipulated that such negotiations can only take place in the context of
mandatory collective management. According to the Commission’s sources, this is specifically the case in
Germany, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Finland, France and Ireland.

On the other hand, the vast majority of performers prefer to leave the negotiating to collecting societies,
even where national
laws do not provide for mandatory collective management. Indeed, this form of
centralised management is often more practical, both for performers and for the users of licences to
exploit rights. Lastly, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that in
response to a request for a preliminary ruling, the Court of Justice of the European Communities is to
decide in the coming weeks what exactly is to be understood by ‘equitable remuneration’ and the amount
of discretion left to Member States in applying this concept (see Case C-245/00 SENA v NOS).

(2003/C 155 E/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3791/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Subject: Collective redundancies

In her reply of 21 November 2002 to my question E-2883/02 (1), Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou
referred to the fact that infringement proceedings (Case C-55/02) were currently in progress before the
European Court of Justice against Portugal for failure fully to transpose Council Directive 98/59/EC (2) of
20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies.

Will the Commission provide further details regarding these proceedings, specifying in particular what
aspects of
thereby giving rise to the
proceedings?

the directive were not duly transposed into Portuguese law,

(1) See page 57.
(2) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16.

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/189

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2003)

The infringement proceedings (1) against Portugal to which the Honourable Member refers are concerned
law of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the
with the transposition into national
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies.

More specifically, the Commission is rebuking Portugal for its failure to meet its obligations under the EC
Treaty, and under Articles 1, 6 and 7 of the above-mentioned Directive, in that the relevant Portuguese
legislation restricts the concept of collective redundancies to dismissals for structural, technological or
economic reasons. In the Commission’s view, this concept is defined more broadly in Directive 98/59/EC,
which applies to dismissals effected by an employer for one or more reasons not related to the individual
workers concerned. A consequence of the concept of collective redundancies being restricted under
Portuguese law is that the protection of workers which the Directive aims to provide does not extend, for
example, to instances of bankruptcy, expropriation or fire, or to cases where a firm ceases to operate
following the death of the entrepreneur.

(1) Case C-55/02, currently pending before the Court of Justice.

(2003/C 155 E/209)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3796/02

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Places of refuge for vessels in distress

When Directive 2002/59/EC (1) establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system
was being discussed, I advocated a stricter regime for ports and other places of refuge for vessels in distress
and called for compensation arrangements for ports accommodating vessels in distress. It might perhaps
have been possible to prevent the ‘Prestige’ disaster if the damaged vessel had been taken to a port or other
place of refuge or mooring instead of out to sea.

Directive 2002/59/EC lays down that ports should be able to rely on prompt compensation for any costs
and damage involved in such operations. The Commission was to examine whether a system of
compensation can be introduced and whether it is feasible to require vessels putting in at a European port
to be adequately insured.

Has the Commission now examined the scope for this? Does it not consider that, in the light of the
‘Prestige’ disaster, the regime for ports of refuge must urgently be tightened up further?

(1) OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2003)

The only obligations laid down by international law to date are for information and cooperation between
national authorities to assist vessels in distress. There is as yet no obligation to accommodate such vessels.

As the Honourable Member points out, following the Erika disaster the Commission did propose new rules
on places of refuge. Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002
establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system (part of the Erika II package) (1)
stipulated that all Member States should develop plans to deal with this type of situation and must inform
the Commission of
‘Such plans shall contain the necessary arrangements and
procedures (…) to ensure that ships in distress may immediately go to a place of refuge subject to
authorisation by the competent authority.’ The Directive, adopted in summer 2002, is to be incorporated
into national legislation by February 2004.

It stipulates,

them.