WRITTEN QUESTION E-0205/03 by Manuel dos Santos (PSE) to the Commission. Business closure.
Date: 2003-02-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, European Works Council, Portugal, aid system, approximation of laws, collective dismissal, textile industry, transfer of businesses, worker information

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/81

Is it also aware that the Netherlands attempts to overcome the shortage in part by using the requisite

2.
services in neighbouring countries which have more hospital beds and doctors?

3.
Is the Commission aware that, in execution of a contract with a Dutch sickness insurance company,
the hospital in Genk, Belgium, has, to date, treated more than 6 000 Dutch patients on the same basis as
Belgian insured patients but that that hospital does not want to extend the contract without changes being
made to it on the grounds that Belgian patients are now being put on waiting lists and that the operations
being carried out on Dutch nationals are more complicated and, hence, much more costly than was
expected?

4.
Does the Commission agree with me that, in instances of this nature, what is happening here no
longer simply involves the individual patient’s freedom of choice, promoted by the EU, to be treated on an
equal footing in a hospital in another Member State and that the result thereof is an increasing dependency
on the provision of services in a neighbouring country which seriously threatens the patient’s freedom of
choice?

5.
Does the Commission deem it acceptable for a Member State to transfer the consequences of the
failures in its own healthcare system structurally and permanently on to an neighbouring country which
has organised its healthcare services more efficiently instead of first solving its problems internally with the
greatest possible speed?

6. What help is the Commission giving with a view to ensuring that a fair balance is struck in the
Member States and, possibly,
in the regions between the provision of hospital services and the calls
thereon so that the possibility of using services in neighbouring countries once again involves exclusively
freedom of choice which is determined by quality and proximity instead of permanent dependence on the
neighbouring countries as a result of a country’s own failings?

Source: Het Journaal Laat, TV-1 Vlaanderen, (The Late Show, Flanders-1 TV) 21 January 2003.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2003)

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that the EC Treaty stresses that Member
States retain responsibility for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.
Nevertheless, according to settled case-law, the Member States must comply with Community law when
exercising that power. The Commission follows closely how health services are being used across
Community borders. This raises a number of health policy issues. In order to discuss these in detail, it has
initiated a high level reflection process with Ministers of Health and key stakeholders. The purpose of this
group is to identify areas in which intensified co-operation at Union level would be beneficial. Some of the
issues raised by the Honourable Member could possibly be addressed in this context.

(2003/C 268 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0205/03

by Manuel dos Santos (PSE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject: Business closure

Having already asked the Commission about C. & J. Clark’s relocation from Castelo de Paiva (Portugal) to
India and, possibly, Romania, I learned that the Gerry Weber clothing company is preparing to take similar
steps to relocate its Figueiró dos Vinhos (Portugal) fabrics plant abroad.

If this relocation (or even the simple closure of the business) takes place, it will generate considerable
unemployment in the region, with disastrous social consequences.

Gerry Weber is another example of a company which applied for and obtained considerable amounts of
Community funding.

C 268 E/82

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

I am fully aware that the Commission, as the guardian of Community legislation, needs to give pride of
place to freedom of movement and the rules of the market, but it also has a duty to ensure that
contractual obligations concerning location are fully complied with.

As before, there are good grounds for believing that the company has not strictly complied with its
contractual obligations.

Would the Commission therefore state:

1. whether it was notified of this fresh relocation development;

2. whether, if it was not, it is going to investigate the issue;

3. whether it is considering the possible drafting of Community legislation which will, without violating
the principle of freedom of movement and the rules of the market, make it possible to circumscribe
speculative operations of this kind, which are damaging to the interests both of people and of regions,
and violate the true spirit of Community subsidy?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the relocation of the business in question.

As far as the European Social Fund (ESF) is concerned, the Commission would remind the Honourable
in order to boost the
Member that investment in continuing training is absolutely vital
competitiveness of the country’s economy. However, ESF support for this purpose, as well as support from
the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), is allocated by the Member State under its approved
state aid scheme. The Member State must therefore ensure that Community competition rules are adhered
to, particularly the current guidelines on national regional aid (1), which were adopted by the Commission
in March 1998 and require the assets financed to be maintained in the establishment for at least five years
from the date of the investment for which aid was granted.

in Portugal

Various Community directives may apply in the event of business closures with serious
social
consequences (e.g. collective redundancies), namely Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (2) and Directive 94/45/
EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council (3). These directives require
workers’ representatives to be informed and consulted before such decisions are taken, with a view to
avoiding or attenuating the social consequences of collective redundancies.

These directives have been transposed into Member States’ national law, and it is the task of the competent
national authorities to ensure that the rules in question are properly applied.

Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a
framework for informing and consulting employees (4) develops these principles by making
general
provision for the anticipatory and preventive involvement of workers’ representatives in strategic decisions
taken by the employer and in the development of employment within the business. This directive must be
transposed by 21 March 2005, but the point is made that most Member States already have provisions on
this subject.

In January 2002 the Commission also recommended the European social partners to identify the principles
to be observed by businesses embarking on restructuring operations and to establish appropriate means of
ensuring compliance with these principles throughout the European Union. At the end of 2002 the social
partners decided to include this subject in their multiannual work programme. The Commission hopes that
the efforts deployed in connection with the European social dialogue will yield concrete and beneficial
results in terms of influencing the way in which restructuring operations are carried out in Europe.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.
(2) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.
(3) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.
(4) OJ L 80, 23.3.2002.