WRITTEN QUESTION P-0417/04 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Sackings from the Finex Group factory.
Date: 2004-02-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, EU financing, Portugal, clothing industry, collective dismissal, labour relations

C 84 E/390

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0452)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0415/04

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Review of decision on Norrmejerier

Norrmejerier is building an installation for the processing of whey, biological purification of waste water
and production of green energy. The project period has been extended to 31 November 2004, but
Norrmejerier needs a further six months to get the installation into shape and complete its final report.
The installation will be operational in April 2005. It cannot be absolutely guaranteed that a final report
will be ready by that date, and Norrmejerier has accordingly sought an extension until 31 May. This
construction project is excellent from the environmental point of view: it will reduce the use of fossil fuel
and alleviate the greenhouse effect.

The payment of support to Norrmejerier from LIFE has been halted, and this is causing Norrmejerier
financial problems.

Would the Commission consider reviewing the decision to withdraw support for Norrmejerier, thereby
giving it the opportunity to complete the project according to plan?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

The LIFE Programme (1) aims at contributing to the implementation, updating and development of
Community environment policy and of environmental legislation, in particular as regards the integration of
the environment into other policies, and to sustainable development in the Community.

LIFE beneficiaries commit themselves to fulfil the requirements laid down in the individual Commission
decision for their project and notably the standard administrative provisions (cf. LIFE web-site (2)).

The project LIFE00 ENV/S/854 proposed by the beneficiary Norrmejerier aims at building a pilot plant to
ensure protein recycling and energy recovery in dairy production. Considering its potential positive
environmental benefits, the project proposal was selected in 2000. In order to meet the beneficiary’s need
for more time for project implementation, a prolongation was exceptionally granted for 12 months,
adding to the original timetable of three years.

Recently, the Commission received a new prolongation request, but decided to terminate the project. The
Commission has carefully examined the Honourable Member’s request to review this decision, but cannot
do so and still be in conformity with the standard administrative provisions applying equally to all LIFE
projects. The beneficiary has not been able to meet the extended deadlines and will not be able to achieve
the original project conditions, thereby jeopardising project results. The project has barely started and only
a small part of eligible costs have been incurred so far.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 concerning the Financial

Instrument for the Environment (LIFE), OJ L 192, 28.7.2000.

(2) http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/home.htm

(2004/C 84 E/0453)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0417/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 February 2004)

Subject: Sackings from the Finex Group factory

The Finnish Finex Group owns a clothing factory in Nogueira, Maia, Portugal, which used to employ some
1 000 workers. Finex has already pressurised over half of them to accept dismissal agreements. Of the

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/391

current 430 workers, some 300 women are now being pressurised to consent to unacceptable agreements
on their dismissal by the end of this month. It should be noted that this company has received various
subsidies.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. How much Community subsidy has been paid to the Finex Group in Portugal and in other

EU countries?

2. What measures are the Commission and the Portuguese Government going to take with a view to

defending the employment and all the rights of Finex’s workers, most of whom are women?

3.

Is the Commission prepared to demand that the subsidies paid to the Finex Group should be repaid,
if Finex continues to put pressure on its workers with a view to getting rid of them?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that Finex has received the following aid:

Community Support Framework (CSF II)

(in euro)

Total

European Social Fund
(ESF)

Orçameno da Segurança Social
(OSS)

PEDIP II

20 467,54

15 350,65

5 116,89

The granting of ESF assistance for vocational training measures 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 the time of allocation of such assistance.

The Commission feels that any investment in human capital is of the greatest importance at national and
regional levels. It must be underlined that ESF funding does not support a company as such, but provides
an investment in human capital, so that the training which individuals benefit from improves their
employability. Furthermore, as far as the Commission is aware, the company concerned is not in breach of
the rules on the granting of Structural Fund assistance.

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the company concerned has received cofinancing
from the European Regional Development Fund amounting to EUR 308 413, for a project approved on
11 February 1996 under the programme for modernisation of the economic fabric (see CSF II) (1).

(1)

Financial assistance to Portugal for a specific industrial development programme.

(2004/C 84 E/0454)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0421/04

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Lifting of the temporary restriction on the use of fishmeal in animal feed

In his answer to my question E-1601/03 (1) of 30 June 2003, David Byrne, the Commissioner for Health
and Consumer Protection, stated: ‘Council Decision 2000/766/EC (2) (the extended feed ban), implemented
by Commission Decision 2001/9/EC (3), both last amended by Commission Decision 2002/248/EC (4), aims
at preventing cattle from being exposed to ruminant meat-and-bone meal, potentially contaminated with
prions causing bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). It is a crucial tool in the control and eradication
of BSE in cattle and therefore necessary to guarantee safe beef. Fishmeal itself does not present a risk for
BSE. The reason for banning fishmeal in feed is a matter of control. In particular, the presence of fishmeal
may hamper the control of the presence of ruminant meat-and-bone meal in feed. Preliminary results of a
recent ring trial indicate that it is difficult to detect a contamination of 0,1 % mammalian proteins in feed