WRITTEN QUESTION E-0464/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. Brax — sackings and relocation.
Date: 2004-02-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Portugal, business management, clothing industry, collective dismissal, fraud against the EU, offshoring

C 84 E/408

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

food law, establishing the European Food Safety
down the general principles and requirements of
Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1) confirmed the principle that food
business operators have primary responsibility for the safety of the food they produce.

in terms of cofinancing, the Community has favoured a different approach to the
For this reason,
prevention of salmonella contamination, aiming to improve the egg industry in the initial stages of the
food chain. The new regulations on zoonoses adopted recently by the European Parliament and the
Council
Improvement
thus provide for increased salmonella testing in the rearing of
programmes for breeding flocks of poultry are already in place in all Member States.

laying hens.

The Commission feels that, with these measures, the risk of people contracting salmonellosis from eating
eggs should be significantly reduced in the next few years.

In addition, should Member States wish to provide financial assistance for the use of this technology, such
assistance must comply with Community rules on state aid.

(1) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.

(2004/C 84 E/0474)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0464/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:

‘Brax’ (cid:1) sackings and relocation

The German ready-to-wear ‘Brax’ factory in Vila Noa de Gaia (Portugal) has closed its doors, throwing
430 people out of work. The workers accuse the company of
transferring
production to another country where labour is cheaper (Bulgaria and Poland). Portuguese social security
‘arbitrary closure and shirking of
and labour minister has publicly stated that
responsibilities’ [encerramento selvagem e de abandono], and that the Portuguese Government is going to
take Brax to court, as well as suggesting that reparations will be sought from the company for misuse of
Community funds. The Minister has also announced that he would activate the salary guarantee fund,
so that the 430 Brax workers could receive their backpay, and thus not lose their contractual link with the
firm, should a new investor be found for the factory.

leaving the process of

this is a case of

The Commission:

(cid:1) Is it monitoring this serious situation?

(cid:1) What is the total amount (and the dates) of the subsidies directly or indirectly originating from
Community sources which were granted for the building and equipping of the Brax factory in
Portugal, whether these were granted to the firm operating in Portugal or to the possible mother-firm
or industrial group? What are the dates and sums of the direct or indirect Community subsidies
granted to the group’s companies for its factories in the various countries of the European Union
(or, earlier, the EEC) and the enlargement countries?

(cid:1) Has the Commission already taken any measures against Brax in view of the extremely deleterious
social and economic impact of the closure of the Vila Nova de Gaia factory? Does the Commission
possess any evidence that the company’s administration behaved in a fraudulent manner in respect of
Community funds?

(cid:1) Is the Commission in a position to guarantee that since Brax was directly or indirectly granted
its Portuguese factory, the group will not receive any other

Community funding in respect of
Community funds, directly or indirectly, for possible relocation?

(cid:1) What other measures has the Commission taken or does it intend to take with regard to this case?

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/409

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The Commission would refer
Mrs Figueiredo (1).

(1) See page 343.

the Honourable Member

to its answer

to written E-0243/04 by

(2004/C 84 E/0475)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0467/04

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Mission expenses

What were the mission expenses for (i) Members and (ii) staff of the Commission in respect of their
attendance at part-sessions of the European Parliament held in Strasbourg (a) during 2001 and (b) during
2002?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

The breakdown of mission expenses necessitated by attendance at part-sessions of the European Parliament
held in Strasbourg in 2001 and 2002 and by category was as follows:

Year

2001

2002

Cabinet staff

Category

Other Commission
staff

Members

Total

209 245,01

340 794,65

1 089 143,59

1 639 183,25

311 144,85

355 632,28

1 114 182,32

1 780 959,45

(in euro)

The above expenses relate to measurable and billed costs of transport, accommodation, meals, and other
expenditures such as telephone and fax use for work purposes.

(2004/C 84 E/0476)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0471/04

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Misuse of the model European disabled person’s parking card

In many European towns and cities, the disabled person’s parking card exempts disabled persons from
parking charges (more accurately, the parking tax). With the introduction of the model European disabled
person’s parking card, the printing of the related car registration number on the card is no longer
permitted, on the grounds that the card should be able to be used as widely as possible by and for disabled
persons.

In towns and cities with high parking rates, the possession of a disabled person’s card (not bearing a car
registration number) is very useful (for the able-bodied as well) for avoiding the payment of parking
charges.

Accordingly, there is, in practice, widespread abuse of the card system, and large numbers of cards are
stolen from disabled persons’ vehicles. The assumption that the cards are being used fraudulently may be