WRITTEN QUESTION E-3673/03 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Community aid to the multinational Gerry Weber.
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Portugal, cessation of trading, fund (EU), labour law, multinational enterprise, support policy, textile industry

C 84 E/80

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Does the Commission know that with regard to the ‘crab-catching macaque’, the other imported
species, the countries of origin (basically Malaysia and the Philippines) actually prohibited the export
of these animals?

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 214.
(2) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

With regard to Article 22 of Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the protection of
animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, the Commission has received no indication
that the provisions of this Article are not being met.

The application of Articles 5, 14 and 15, on the housing and care of the animals, education and training of
personnel, and conditions for approving breeding and supplying establishments, is the responsibility of the
national authorities. The Commission has so far not received any indication that these provisions are not
complied with and thus has no basis for a Commission investigation.

The Commission is aware that the species in question, Macaca fascicularis, is listed on Appendix II of
CITES and the corresponding Annex B of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the
protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1). Import of such species into the
Community is only allowed when the country of origin has issued a valid export permit (thus respecting
the decision of some countries to ban exports) and when the Member State concerned, in consultation
with other Member States where appropriate, deems that the import does not pose a threat to the
conservation status of the species. In the present case, the information available to the Commission
indicates that the monkeys are not taken from any native wild populations. Therefore, subject to the
provision of export permits, the import is not in breach of CITES or Regulation (EC) No 338/97.

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

(2004/C 84 E/0085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3673/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Community aid to the multinational Gerry Weber

The German-based multinational Gerry Weber formerly owned a textile manufacturing plant in Figueiró
dos Vinhos (Portugal), which employed some 150 workers until it closed early in 2003. This closure
occurred despite the plant reportedly being in receipt of Community funds in support of its operations.

The plant was subsequently bought up by another company, and operations recommenced in September.

The Commission:

1. Can itstate whether Gerry Weber received Community funds for its textile manufacturing plant in

Figueiró dos Vinhos (Portugal)?

2.

Should that be the case, what measures has Commission taken, or what measures will
following the decision by Gerry Weber Portugal Confecções, Lda to close the plant?

it take,

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/81

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the firm Gerry Weber received
1.
funding from the Community support framework (CSF II) (1994-1999), for the vocational training and
employment programme (1), notably EUR 226 525,26 from the European Social Fund (ESF).

The Commission would also like to point out that funding from the ESF is not subject to conditions linked
to undertakings’ continued existence but to compliance with the access and eligibility criteria laid down in
the regulations in force at that time for the allocation of ESF assistance.

The firm also received EUR 809 823,86 in cofinancing from the European Regional Development Fund
for two projects approved under the 1988 PNICIAP (2) programme (CSF I) and the 1994
(ERDF)
programme for modernisation of the economic fabric (CSF II).

The guidelines which 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 were not adopted by the Commission
until after 10 March 1998.

2.
The Commission would like to point out that several Community Directives lay down procedures for
informing and consulting workers’ representatives that may be applicable when enterprises are closed
down, especially Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to collective redundancies (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 for
informing and consulting employees (4) and Directive 2002/14/EC of the European
the purposes of
Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and
consulting employees in the European Community (5). The first two have been transposed in the Member
States. It is up to the competent national authorities, including the judges, to assess whether they are
properly implemented in each case. The last Directive mentioned is to be transposed in the Member States
by no later than 23 March 2005.

(1) Decision No C (1994) 379, 25 February 1994.
(2) Programa Nacional de Interesse Comunitário de Incentivo a Actividade Produtiva (National programme of

Community interest in support of productive activity).

(3) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.
(4) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.
(5) OJ L 80, 23.3.2002.

(2004/C 84 E/0086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3677/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Prato

In its answer to question E-1114/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Prato had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that the city
had applied but had not been been selected for funding.

Can the Commission say why the projects were not considered suitable?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so,
can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.