WRITTEN QUESTION No. 508/99 by Klaus LUKAS EU resources for the Natolin Europe College
C 341/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29. 11. 1999 (1999/C 341/177) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0491/99 by Joaquín Sisó Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission (5 March 1999) Subject: Preventive measures at work Everyone knows how much the application of preventive principles contributes to improving health and safety at work and this is recognised by the Commission in its Fourth Programme on health, hygiene and security at work. In view of the fact that, in many cases, it is cheaper for a company to pay a fine than to adopt preventive measures (thus evading the spirit of the law), what action is to be taken to remedy this state of affairs? Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (31 March 1999) The Commission shares the opinion of the Honourable Member in attaching particular importance to ensuring that the provisions of Community legislation on health and safety at work are actually applied in all the Member States. In accordance with Article 4 of framework Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (1), the Member States must ensure, in particular, adequate controls and supervision of the national provisions transposing the Directive. In this connection, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the consistent case-law of the Court of Justice, which indicates that the Member States are required, within the bounds of the freedom left to them by the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty, to choose the most appropriate forms and methods to ensure the effectiveness of directives. Where a directive does not specifically provide any penalty for an infringement or refers for that purpose to national laws, regulations and administrative provisions, Article 5 of the Treaty requires the Member States to take all measures necessary to guarantee the application and effectiveness of Community law. For that purpose, while the choice of penalties remains within their discretion, they must ensure in particular that infringements of Community law are penalised under conditions, both procedural and substantive, which are analogous to those applicable to infringements of national law of a similar nature and importance and which, in any event, make the penalty effective, proportionate and dissuasive (2). It is therefore up to the national authorities to find the right balance between the financial penalty provided for by the national regulations and the aim of promoting the prevention of occupational hazards. (1) OJ L 189, 29. 6. 1989. (2) Judgment of 12 September 1996, Sando Gallotti and others, Joined Cases C-58/95, C-75/95, C-112/95, C-119/95, C-123/95, C-135/95, C-140/95, C-141/95, C-154/95 and C-157/95, ECR, page I-4345, point 14. (1999/C 341/178) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0508/99 by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission (8 March 1999) Subject: EU resources for the Natolin Europe College 1. What are the EU’s total payments for the Natolin Europe College? 2. 3. 4. How much is this per student? Is there an EU educational establishment that is more heavily subsidized by the Commission? Has this institute ever produced a scientific publication?