WRITTEN QUESTION E-0891/04 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Closure of the Valeo factory in Portugal.
Date: 2004-03-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Portugal, cessation of trading, collective dismissal, corporate social responsibility, mechanical engineering, offshoring

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/903

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Joint Aviation Requirements (JARs) referred to by the Honourable Member are harmonisation
measures put in place by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), the body representing the civil aviation
regulatory authorities of 38 European States. The measures concerning licences, JAR-FCL, deal with an area
not yet covered by Community legislation. The Commission would point out that the measures provided
for under the JARs are not directly applicable, but must be transposed into national legislation by the
States concerned. If the measure referred to by the Honourable Member has been adopted, it is a measure
under Dutch law transposing a JAR and not a provision of Community law.

In order to allow the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to develop technical rules on licences, the
Commission will soon be proposing Community legislation extending the EASA’s competence in this field.
Once this legislation has been adopted, the EASA will be responsible for laying down technical rules which
will serve as a basis for Community legislation on flight crew licences. Once adopted and implemented, the
Community licensing legislation will replace the JAR-FCL and any national implementing provisions.

(2004/C 84 E/0998)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0891/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Closure of the Valeo factory in Portugal

The French multinational Valeo has informed workers that its Santo Tirso plant in Portugal, by word of
mouth, is to be closed because of restructuring, threatening to throw the 330 workers out of a job. In fact,
the company has already relocated machinery from the factory to Morocco, and cut the number of
workers at the plant.

Valeo has factories, research and distribution centres in various European countries, and has two plants in
Portugal (Santo Tirso and Viana do Castelo), devoted to producing electronic and link-up components.

Valeo employs over 68 000 workers in various countries world wide, it has 129 factories, 65 research
centres and nine distribution centres; its profits in 2003 were in excess of nine thousand million euros.

Has Valeo received any Community subsidy for its factories in Portugal and in the other countries of

1.
Europe?

2. What measures does the Commission intend to take to guarantee the rights of Valeo’s workers in
Portugal, specifically the right to employment?

3. What is the Commission’s strategy to prevent the persistence of these relocations by multinationals,
which are worsening unemployment and blocking the development of various Portuguese regions?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

With regard to the first part of the question, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the
firm Valeo has not received any Community assistance under the European Social Fund or the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

C 84 E/904

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

With regard to the second and third parts of the question, the Commission would like to draw the
Honourable Member’s attention to its answer to Written Questions P-376/04 by Mrs Luciana Sbarbati (1)
(in particular paragraphs 2 and 3) and P-0528/03 by Mrs Bastos (2) (in particular paragraph 2).

The Commission is aware of the phenomenon of business relocations in the European Union. This
problem is related mainly to concerns about de-industrialisation, regarding which the Commission gave a
preliminary response to the request of the 2003 European Council in its communication ‘Some Key Issues
in Europe’s Competitiveness (cid:1) Towards an Integrated Approach’ (3). In fact, several Community policies
help to create a favourable climate for businesses in Europe.

While continuing this work, the Commission also intends to carry out further analysis of the concept of
de-industrialisation and to make specific proposals for action in its forthcoming communication on
industrial policy.

(1) See page 204.
(2) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003.
(3) COM(2003) 704 final.

(2004/C 84 E/0999)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0893/04

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject: Costs of cross-border transfer payments

At the beginning of July 2003, Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the
Council on cross-border payments in euro entered into force, under which cross-border transfers within
the euro zone must be treated in the same way as transfers within a Member State.

In a specific case where a transfer was made from the Stadtsparkasse Köln to the Crédit Lyonnais, the
receiving bank imposed a charge for the transfer even though the IBA number and BI code were stated.

As this is a violation of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001:

1.

are banks (cid:1) particularly receiving banks (cid:1) permitted to impose transfer charges of their own despite
the new regulation?

2.

if not, can the amount be reclaimed?

3. what action can the Commission take to deal with such cases?

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 13.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

According to Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001
on cross-border payments in euro, the charges levied by an institution in respect of cross-border electronic
payment transactions in euro shall be the same as the charges levied by the same institution in respect of
corresponding domestic payments in euro. This rule applies to electronic payment transactions (payments
by card and withdrawals at cash dispensers) in euro up to EUR 12 500 from 1 July 2002 and to credit
transfers from 1 July 2003.