WRITTEN QUESTION E-0423/04 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Closure of the Brax factory in Portugal.
Date: 2004-02-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Portugal, Romania, cessation of trading, collective dismissal, corporate social responsibility, offshoring

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/585

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

Concerning dangerous substances, the Council and the Parliament have adopted a list of 33 substances or
groups of substances of which 11 have been classified as ‘priority hazardous’, 14 as ‘priority’ which are
under review and eight not ‘priority hazardous’. For the moment, hexafluorosilicic acid is not covered by
Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the
list of priority substances in the field of water policy, and amending Directive 2000/60/EC (1).

For Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human
consumption, the approach followed in the Council Directive has been to set limit values, which should
not be exceeded, for a series of substances including fluoride; the maximum permitted levels have been
fixed on the basis of available scientific knowledge in order to protect human health. The choice of the
means to bring the quality of the drinking water in line with the Community legislation is left to the
Member States themselves.

The list of parameters of the Directive has been limited to those which are of most importance for the
quality of drinking water in the Community. The substances on the list are not the only substances which
could present a risk or even a potential threat to human health if present in drinking water. However, to
include all potential contaminants without regard to how likely or unlikely their presence may be would
have created an unworkable Directive. This would have implied disproportionate monitoring obligations
and very little gain in safety.

(1) OJ L 331, 15.12.2001.

(2004/C 84 E/0662)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0423/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Closure of the Brax factory in Portugal

Brax Portuguesa, clothes-making factory, Ltd., situated in Serzedo, Vila Nova de Gaia, has just closed its
doors, throwing 450 workers on the dole. The Brax multinational, funded by German capital, has already
opened new factories in Romania and other candidate countries. The documentation which was handed
out to the Portuguese workers reveal that the company states that it has not paid salaries for the last two
months, and does not intend to pay them in subsequent months. It should be noted that the company
used Portuguese workers from Brax Portuguesa to train Romanian workers. Now it is sacking the former,
quite illegally and unacceptably, although it is retaining the factory building and other significant property
next to the factory. Brax Portuguesa obtained Community funding, and will undoubtedly continue to do so
in Romania and elsewhere.

The Commission:

1.

2.

Is it going to demand that the Brax Group reimburse the Community funding it received, if it persists
in closing down its Portuguese operations?

Is it going to refuse to give the Brax Group any further Community funding, whatever country it is in,
if it keeps the Portuguese factory shut?

C 84 E/586

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that
obligations of enterprises which have benefited from Community funding are as follows:

the provisions in force with regard to the

(cid:1) For the period covered by the 2000-2006 Community Support Frameworks (CSF), the following

provisions apply in respect of the Structural Funds:

(cid:1) firstly, the Commission has laid down provisions in the Guidelines on national regional aid
(1998) which oblige beneficiaries of aid to maintain any funded investment for a period of five
years. The Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP) holds that the period of five years for
maintaining the investment laid down in point 4.10 of the guidelines starts when the investment
for which the aid is granted has been completed, i.e. from the moment when the investment is
used in the enterprise;

(cid:1) secondly, and by the same token, the General Regulation governing the Structural Funds (1999)
provides that the Fund’s funding of productive activities is dependent on the activities not
relocating within five years of the funding decision;

(cid:1) thirdly, major projects (i.e. valued at over EUR 50 million) can be cofinanced under a European
regional development fund (ERDF) programme only if a specific application is made to the
Commission and the Member States fill in a questionnaire which includes a question on the risk
of relocation. The Commission take this into account when deciding on the level of ERDF
cofunding (which can be up to 35 % in Objective 1 regions) to be granted or, as the case may be,
refused.

(cid:1) With regard to the period covered by the 1994-1999 CSF, the five-year rule entered into force only in
1998. It should, however, be borne in mind that Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1) was already in
force, Article 24 of which provides for aid to be reduced or cancelled if scrutiny of an operation
confirms the existence of an irregularity or a major change which affects the nature or conditions of
implementation of the operation or measure and for which the Commission’s approval has not been
requested. The Commission must verify this under the terms of its partnership with the Member State.

(cid:1) The rules for the current period of programming will apply to the accession countries when they join

the Union.

(cid:1) In any event, it is up to the Member State to take any legal action on the basis of the agreements
entered into with the enterprise when the aid was granted. Therefore, if a beneficiary has not complied
with the Community rules on State aid, it must reimburse the authorities which granted the aid.

(cid:1) As the Member State’s partner, the Commission has already drawn its attention to the case specifically
alluded to by the Honourable Member so that it can ascertain whether the enterprise has fulfilled its
obligations.

(cid:1) If an enterprise relocates from one region to another in the same country, from one Member State to
another or from a Member State to an accession country whilst complying with the rules and
regulations in force, neither the Commission nor the Member State have the right to refuse it a grant
in the place of relocation if it meets the requirements for aid.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation
(EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and
with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial
instruments, OJ L 374,
31.12.1988.