WRITTEN QUESTION P-0370/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. Closure of the Clarks factory in Portugal — Community aid — Relocation.
Date: 2003-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Portugal, Romania, accession to the European Union, aid to undertakings, collective dismissal, footwear industry, offshoring

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/323

The General Elections Act of Malta foresees that any decision to transfer, correct or cancel voters can only
be taken by an Electoral Commission, which includes appointees of both political parties. In addition, in
the case of a challenge of a citizen’s right of vote on the ground on mental
infirmity, the Electoral
Commission can take a decision to cancel a registration only if the appointed Medical Board has previously
decided by unanimous vote that the voter is of unsound mind. This Medical Board is composed of a
medical doctor appointed as chairperson and a medical doctor appointed by each of the political parties.
This legal procedure guarantees that no abusive cancellation of a citizen from the voters’ register takes
place.

Therefore, while there have been challenges by both parties of some citizens’ right of vote, on the ground
of mental
infirmity, a cancellation of a registration can only be done following legally established
procedures. The Commission is not aware that this has resulted in the cancellation of hundreds of
registrations of these citizens. The Commission also noted that the Nationalist Party has withdrawn its
challenges of some citizens’ right of vote on the ground of mental infirmity, and presented apologies to
those who had been unduly challenged.

The Commission believes that the political campaign for the accession referendum in Malta has taken place
until now in conformity with basic democratic rules. There has been, to its knowledge, no limitation to the
right of the Labour Party and the ‘No side’ to hold meetings. The Commission is not aware of any attempt
‘to bias the civil service’.

The Commission wishes, however, to stress that the issue of accession to the Union is a subject of
historical importance for Malta and which rises a lot of passion in a country that applied for membership
already in 1990.

(2004/C 88 E/0328)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0370/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2003)

Subject: Closure of the Clarks factory in Portugal (cid:1) Community aid (cid:1) Relocation

The Portuguese media have extensively reported the recent announcement of the forthcoming closure of a
shoe factory belonging to the British multinational Clarks in Castelo de Paiva, in the north of the country.
As a result of this unexpected closure, some 600 workers will be made redundant and this will have a
particularly devastating impact on the living conditions of families and workers resident in the area, which
is in fact situated, for the purposes of the structural funds, in an Objective 1 region.

To set up the plant in 1988 and begin production in Castelo de Paiva, the company received considerable
support from national and Community funds and was scheduled to continue production at least until
2007.

It has frequently been reported that Clarks is relocating the factory from Portugal to Romania and is now
hoping that, by opening the new plant in Romania, it will become eligible for further Community funding
as part of the aid being made available for pre-accession and the future integration of this Eastern
European country.

Does the Commission have duly substantiated information regarding Clarks’
intention to relocate its
factory from Portugal to Romania? Can the Commission guarantee that, as direct or indirect Community
funding was granted for the Portuguese factory, no further direct or indirect funding will be granted to the
Clarks group for the new factory in Romania (which would be equivalent to an indirect ‘premium’ for the
closure of the Portuguese factory)?

C 88 E/324

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2003)

The Commission does not have any specific information concerning this company’s intention to relocate
from Portugal to Romania. Moreover, to the Commission’s knowledge, the company in question has not
received pre-accession aid for the relocation of one of its plants, initially set up in Portugal, to Romania.
Direct aid to companies under the PHARE programme is essentially aid for small and medium-sized
enterprises, and aid for the ‘relocation’ of companies is not eligible.
In general, pre-accession aid is
administered by the candidate countries within programmes approved by the Commission, which means
that there is no direct aid from the Commission and that the programming of aid is based on recognised
development needs and/or a region or country’s need for preparation for accession. The choice of location
of a business depends on the market and is based on an analysis of the regions’ and countries’ comparative
advantages. The direct aid available plays only a very minor role in these choices, especially as it is
determined in accordance with global development needs rather than the needs of individual companies.

The Commission would also like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to its reply to Written
Question P-89/03 by Ms Bastos (1), and in particular to those aspects related to the Community provisions
which apply in this area.

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 67.

(2004/C 88 E/0329)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0430/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Subject:

‘Prestige’: State aid

The disaster resulting from the sinking of the Prestige oil tanker off the coast of Galicia has caused severe
losses for many firms linked to the fishing industry and other marine activities, as well as significant socio-
economic troubles for the regions affected.

The possibilities for alleviating these enormous losses include various exceptions to the rule laid down by
Article 87(2) of the Treaty, which establishes the incompatibility with the common market of aid granted
by the Member States to certain firms or for the production of certain goods. Paragraph 2(b) of that article
is
states that ‘aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences’
compatible with the common market.

Furthermore, Article 87(3)(e) states that ‘such other categories of aid as may be specified by decision of the
Council acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission may be considered to be
compatible with the common market’.

In addition, Article 88 establishes that ‘on application by a Member State, the Council may (…) decide that
aid which that State is granting or intends to grant shall be considered to be compatible with the common
market, (…) if such a decision is justified by exceptional circumstances.’

Can the Commission provide information on the initiatives it has put forward so that, in accordance with
Article 87 of the Treaty, the firms affected are able to alleviate the losses resulting from this disaster by
means of state aid, without this being considered incompatible with the common market?

Has any Member State submitted an application to be able to grant aid to firms or for the production of
certain goods adversely affected by this disaster?