WRITTEN QUESTION E-2898/03 by Helmut Kuhne (PSE) to the Commission. Possible unjustified use of EU funds in Spain.
Date: 2003-10-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Spain, building permit, electricity supply, fraud against the EU, property development, road services department

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/243

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

The Union has throughout the years developed a comprehensive policy for dealing adequately with the
social consequences of corporate restructuring. As a result of that ongoing policy, every restructuring
operation must be preceded by effective information and consultation of employees’ representatives with
the aim of avoiding or attenuating its social
in accordance with Community Directives on
impact,
‘Collective Redundancies’ (1), ‘Transfers of Undertakings’ (2), ‘European Works Councils’ (3) and, from March
2005 onwards, ‘Information and Consultation’ (4).

The Commission has, nevertheless, not received specific information on the way in which the Alcatel
Group intends to deal with the social consequences of the on-going restructuring of the company.

However, the Directives mentioned by the Honourable Member are duly transposed into the relevant
national laws. Therefore, it is up to national authorities, at this stage, in particular judicial ones, to ensure
that the rights therein can be fully exercised.
it would like to recall the fact that the
Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of Workers of 1989 and the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union are not legally binding. Finally, Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general
framework for informing and consulting employees must be transposed into national law by 25 March
2005 at the latest.

In addition,

More generally, the Commission advocates the idea that, when restructuring, enterprises should always
take into account the effects that those decisions could have on their employees as well as on the social
and regional context. This has recently been underlined in the Commission Communication concerning
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) A business contribution to Sustainable Development (5).

Furthermore, the Commission invited the European social partners to engage in a dialogue on anticipating
and managing change with a view to apply a dynamic approach to the social aspects of corporate
restructuring. The social partners are in the course of concluding an agreement on this. The Commission
very much hopes that their joint work in this field will result in a Community framework which
disseminates throughout Europe good practices of corporate restructuring, thus helping companies and
their workers to adequately address its social dimension.

(1) Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
collective redundancies. (This Directive consolidates Council Directives 75/129/EEC of 17 February 1975, OJ L 48,
22.2.1975 and 92/56/EEC of 24 June 1992, OJ L 245, 26.8.1992).

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(4) Directive 2002/14/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for

informing and consulting employees in the European Community.

(5) COM(2002) 347 final.

(2004/C 65 E/259)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2898/03

by Helmut Kuhne (PSE) to the Commission

(1 October 2003)

Subject: Possible unjustified use of EU funds in Spain

A letter from an EU citizen has drawn my attention to the fact that, when the private housing estate on
the Spanish coast known as ‘Alhama Candela’ was being expanded, EU funds were possibly used for a
purpose other than the one for which they were actually intended.

C 65 E/244

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

According to my informant, the planning permission issued 30 years ago was granted solely on condition
that the infrastructure was extended and improved. The then amount of DEM 2 million put up for that
project by a German real estate purchaser was not used. In 1997, work was actually begun, but it was not
completed. Nevertheless, the housing estate is being extended to include a new development involving the
construction of more than 64 dwellings.

Electricity supply and road network conditions are described as catastrophic, with Iberdola, the electricity
supply company, refusing to supply electricity. The apparent reason for its refusal to do so is that EU
infrastructure payments were not paid as agreed.

The Commission:

(cid:1) can the Commission confirm that EU aid for this project was actually approved and also paid;

(cid:1) if so, was the grant subject to the condition set out above, and did the local authority duly comply

with that condition?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2003)

The information provided by the Honourable Member does not allow the time (the programming period)
or place (the exact location, i.e. the region and site) of the project to be identified. As a result, it is not
possible for the Commission to examine whether the project involved EU funding or not.

Nevertheless, given that this project appears to be in the housing sector, it should be pointed out that this
sector is not eligible under the Structural Funds.

(2004/C 65 E/260)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2912/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: The European Union’s cohesion policies

Cohesion policy has for years been a fundamental part of the Union’s political activities. The policy’s
instruments of solidarity are the four Structural Funds (the ERDF, ESF, FIFG and EAGGF), the Cohesion
Fund and the Community initiatives (Interreg III, Urban II, Leader+ and Equal).

Of the Community initiatives, Interreg III is the one with a truly European dimension in the sense that it
lessens the effects on our continent of centuries of the existence of national borders. It comes under the
European Regional Development Fund and promotes interregional cooperation in the European Union.
The aim of the new phase of Interreg is to strengthen economic and social cohesion in the EU by
transnational and interregional cooperation and fostering balanced regional
increasing crossborder,
development. The EU launched these four programmes, the Community initiatives (to which 5,35 % of
monies under the Structural Funds are allocated), in order to find common solutions to problems that exist
throughout the EU.

The European scale of this initiative cannot, however, be compared with the boost to cohesion given by
the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund. The Cohesion Fund, a special aid fund, was set up in 1993 to
assist the four least prosperous Member States: Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain. It is used throughout
these countries to finance large-scale environmental and transport projects. Similarly, the Structural Funds
focus on clear priority objectives: 70 % of funding is allocated to help the least developed regions catch up,