WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1959/97 by Mark WATTS to the Commission. Compensation for French truck drivers dispute
C 45/98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 2. 98 What proposals is the Commission drawing up with a view to avoiding similar situations arising in the future? Has the IRU put forward proposals and does it agree to take responsibility for responsible behaviour on the part of its members? (98/C 45/120) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1959/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (28 May 1997) Subject: Compensation for French truck drivers dispute I have been informed that five months after the French truck drivers dispute, many non-French road haulage companies who suffered great financial loss due to this dispute, have still received no financial compensation. In view of the commitment towards free movement of goods and services under Article 3 of the Treaty, can the Commission continue to liaise with the French Government to ensure that non-French road haulage companies who were victims of this domestic dispute receive adequate and full compensation immediately? Joint answer to Written Questions E-1756/97 and P-1959/97 given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (18 June 1997) The Commission has no effective legal right or ability to intervene in a national dispute between employers and employees unless a Member State can be shown to be negligent in its duty to comply with its obligations under the EC Treaty. One such duty is, of course to uphold the right to freedom of movement of goods and people. The Commission can urge Member States to take all measures necessary to guarantee this freedom and has done so frequently at times when the conduct of disputes has impeded the freedom of movement. Compensation for losses incurred by operators is a matter for Member States. When governments have established schemes the Commission however repeatedly emphasises that Member States should act quickly to ensure that operators receive appropriate compensation without delay. The Commission has not received any proposals from the IRU (International road transport union) on this subject. However the Commission understands that this organisation also intervened to help to put an end to the road blockages, and to try to obtain compensation for its member companies. In the recent period, the Commission drew the attention of the French Minister of Transport to the fact that a very large number of complaints has been received and that this called into question the effectiveness of the current compensation arrangements. The Commission has, therefore, asked the French authorities for an urgent report on all the compensation claims submitted, to include details of the number of claims received, what stage they are at and those cases where compensation has been paid. No response has so far been received. (98/C 45/121) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1764/97 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (14 May 1997) Subject: Exemptions with regard to the rice market 1. Does the Commission not agree that the exemption measure is unreasonable in the light of the objectives of the OCT decision and Article 3(r) of the Treaty establishing the European Community concerning the economies of the OCT? 2. Has the Commission examined in advance the effect of an exemption measure on the economies of the OCT? What form did this evaluation take and what was the result? Has the Commission taken it into account in its subsequent measure?