WRITTEN QUESTION E-0243/04 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Relocation and unemployment.
Date: 2004-02-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Northern Portugal, clothing industry, multinational enterprise, offshoring, support policy, unemployment

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/945

On what date did the EIB inform the European Commission of its intention to grant a soft loan to
Schiphol Airport, and was that information accompanied by an environmental impact assessment that may
be made public?

Does the Commission share my view that the EIB should have waited for the result of the EIA referred to
above before approving the loan? How will the Commission approach the EIB with a view to reversing the
matter?

How will the Commission approach the EIB with a view to ensuring that such circumstances do not recur?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

The European Investment Bank (EIB) submitted to the Commission the necessary information for the
Consultation foreseen under Article 21 of the Bank’s statute on 29 November 2001. According to this
information a formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had been carried out already in 1995
satisfying the needs of the Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects
of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) as modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC of
3 March 1997 (2). In addition, according to the information submitted by the EIB in the framework of the
above consultation, planning approvals which follow an EIA had also been granted by the appropriate
authorities. The EIB loan agreement puts a legal obligation on the project promoter to comply with any
relevant legislation, including environmental legislation. On this basis, the Commission did not raise any
further questions with respect
impact. The submission of additional specific
to the environmental
documentation, studies, etc. is not foreseen under the Article 21 consultation procedure.

In a reply to the Friends of the Earth, Netherlands, of December 2002, copied to the Commission, the EIB
explained that a further EIA was completed on 11 March 2002. This EIA did not specifically concern the
operation of the fifth runway, but rather the adaptation of noise and other environmental parameters at
Schiphol Airport as a whole, in the light of the new Aviation Act. Nonetheless, the Commission and the
EIB will ask the Dutch Authorities to provide further information on this EIA so that it can be verified if
this assessment falls within the framework of the Council Directive 85/337/EEC.

More generally,
in addition to the Article 21 consultation procedure where the Commission has an
opportunity to express a formal opinion on the EIB’s operation, the Commission and EIB services have
established regular contacts in an effort to better integrate the environmental approaches of the two
institutions. In view of its importance in the overall authorisation procedure for any given project, the
question of the EIA procedure on the basis of the above-mentioned Directive has been the subject of many
working sessions between the Commission and the Bank services. In particular it has been recognised that,
as a result of a formal EIA, certain aspects of a project may change. It is, therefore, of interest also to the
promoter and consequently to the financing institution to wait for the completion of the formal EIA in
order to have the final design and the final cost of the project.

The Commission will continue to pay particular attention to the correct implementation of the EIA
Directive both in the framework of the Article 21 consultation procedure and the contacts at technical
level.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2004/C 78 E/1000)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0243/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: Relocation and unemployment

Yet another multinational in the textile sector (cid:1) Brax Portuguesa, Fábrica de Confecções, Lda. (cid:1) now
appears likely to cease activity, raising the spectre of unemployment for over 400 workers, most of them
women, at its plant in Vila Nova de Gaia (Portugal).

C 78 E/946

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

In view of the seriousness of this state of affairs, in a region and a Member State where unemployment is
constantly rising,
it is essential that the Commission and the Portuguese government take all possible
measures to prevent yet another multinational from closing its operations in Portugal and, possibly,
relocating to another European country.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Were any Community funds received by the firm Brax Portuguesa, Fábrica de Confecções, Lda. of
Aldeia Nova, Serzedo, Vila Nova de Gaia in Portugal? If so, can the Commission provide details?

2. Was any financial support granted by the EU to the parent company or any of its branches? If so, can

the Commission provide details?

3. What measures does the Commission intend to take to put an end to the constant relocations of

multinationals and the resulting unemployment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2004/C 78 E/1001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0249/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2004)

Subject: Private Eye

A recent edition of the UK satirical publication, Private Eye, contained an apology to Commissioner
Kinnock for a story it had printed. The publication also claimed it had paid Commissioner Kinnock
substantial damages.

Could the Commission state how much money Commissioner Kinnock received in damages from Private
Eye?

Could the Commission verify that Commissioner Kinnock is taking legal action against another
publication, The Sprout, concerning the same article? If so has the Commissioner received any damages
from The Sprout?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Private Eye and Sprout published allegations which were seriously defamatory and, consequently,
Mr Kinnock, Vice-President of the Commission, sued both publications seeking a public apology, damages
and costs. After legal representations, both publications printed apologies saying that
they ‘accept
unreservedly that there is and was no basis for allegations against Mr Kinnock’ and ‘Without exception we
withdraw the allegations and criticisms of Mr Kinnock and apologise to him’.

They also said that ‘In recognition of the seriousness of the allegations against Mr Kinnock and the
complete absence of any justification for them, we have agreed to make a substantial payment in damages
to Mr Kinnock’.

Payment for damages and costs has been received from both publications.

It is Mr Kinnock’s custom to use damages paid for defamation for payments to charities of his choice and,
naturally, is continuing in this case. It is not his custom to publicise the sums received or the names of
those charities although, sometimes, the charity payment has been publicised by others.