WRITTEN QUESTION E-1765/03 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Palco layoffs.
Date: 2003-05-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, European Works Council, Greece, collective dismissal, offshoring, worker consultation

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/167

(2004/C 33 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1762/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject: Discrimination between workers loading and unloading goods in Greece

Having received a large number of complaints, I should like to draw the Commission’s attention to the fact
that in Greece the job of loading and unloading goods is still governed by a law dating back to 1949 (Law
No 1254) under which anyone wishing to engage in this occupation must first be entered in a register
kept, without any clear rules, by an association which, according to the complaints received, frequently
discriminates between applicants.

Does the Commission consider this situation to be in keeping with current common market rules?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

The Commission wishes to point out to the Honourable Member that as a general rule and according to
the jurisprudence a service provider has the right to employ personnel of his own choice.

The Commission, following informal contacts with the Greek authorities has been informed that the Law
1254/1949 does not in itself allow for the discriminations described in her written question.

However, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to submit to it any details, which may allow
the conclusion that discrimination and abuses stemming from the application of Law 1254/1949 are
occurring. In this case the Commission would be willing to investigate this matter in depth, in order to
assess what action should be taken.

In any case, the Commission wishes to remind to the Honourable Member of its proposal for a Directive
of the Parliament and of the Council on Market Access to Port Services, aiming at creating a level playing
field in this area and further ensuring the full respect of the rules of the Treaty, for all parties concerned,
workers, service providers and port users

(2004/C 33 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1765/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Palco layoffs

The decision of the Schiesser-Palco company to close down its production plant in Greece on 30 May
2003 and transfer its manufacturing operations to Bulgaria will result in over 500 job losses among its
workers, the majority of them affecting women, who, having been employed by the company for decades,
will have difficulty in finding other jobs. Furthermore, despite its participation in various European Union-
funded programmes, the company in question has already dismissed 360 workers over the last three years.

In what type of subsidised programme did Schiesser-Palco participate and was this accompanied by

1.
stipulations requiring the company to keep on its workers?

2.
the
Given that Schiesser-Palco until recently had establishments in various Member States of
European Union, has the Commission set up a European works council for consultation of the workers
affected in accordance with Directive 94/45/EC (1)?

(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.

C 33 E/168

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The above mentioned company has not been financed by the European Social Fund (ESF) in the framework
of any Operational Programme in the period 2000-2006.

With regard to the application of Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment
of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale
groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees, the Commission would
remind the Honourable Member that negotiations on the establishment of such a body are begun only at
the written request of 100 employees or their representatives in at least two Member States or on an
initiative of the central management of the groups of undertakings in question. It is not, therefore, up to
the Commission to encourage these negotiations, which require only that those benefiting from the rights
created by the Directive indicate their interest.

(2004/C 33 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1769/03

by Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Compensation from the IOPC Fund for the damage caused by the Prestige disaster

The Prestige sank on 13 November 2002. On 9 May the IOPC Fund announced that the victims of the
Prestige oil slick would initially receive 15 % of the total estimated damages, which amount to almost
EUR 1 billion.

The author of this question shares the indignation of the victims, who, six months after the disaster, are
being offered derisory compensation for the damage and work it caused. In the Erika II legislative package
the Commission proposed setting up a Community compensation fund, the COPE Fund. This text was
adopted by Parliament at first reading in June 2001 and appears to have been held up in the Council ever
since.

1.

Can the Commission say whether any progress has been made on this proposal?

2.
Tax-payers in the Member States are going to have to fund the remaining compensation for the
damage caused by the Prestige wreck. The COPE Fund would have been a way of remedying this
scandalous situation. As the COPE Fund has not been established, owing to being held up in the Council,
can the Commission propose alternative solutions?

Negotiations are currently under way in IOPC on the level of compensation to be paid and the
3.
compensation procedure to be used in the case of oil slick damage. Does the Commission consider the
raised ceiling for IOPC Fund compensation to be high enough?

(2004/C 33 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1771/03

by Jean-Pierre Bébéar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject: IOPC Fund (cid:1) marine pollution

The derisory offer of compensation issued by the IOPC Fund following the ‘Prestige’ disaster has led me,
and many others, to question whether this compensation fund is of any real use.

The Commission has expressed the wish to remedy the shortcomings of the IOPC Fund by setting up a
EUR 1 billion compensation fund for the benefit of the various victims affected when oil tankers go down.