WRITTEN QUESTION E-0492/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) and Fernando Pérez Royo (PSE) to the Commission. Statements made by Commissioner Monti in Spain concerning state aid granted by the Spanish Government.
C 330 E/174 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 Traineeships can be announced by the potential promoter or partners before the programme has 2. been accepted, provided it is made clear that they are subject to acceptance of the programme by the Commission. 3. Under the first phase of Leonardo da Vinci, the programmes mentioned in paragraph 1 generally began on 1 December. They usually run for two years and placements have an average duration of six months. 4. The promoter, beneficiary and the sending and host organisations enter into a binding agreement on participation in a placement or exchange programme. It is not the Commissionís responsibility to provide compensation. The Commission can only offer financial support to participants in a placement or exchange 5. programme. (2000/C 330 E/198) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0492/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) and Fernando PØrez Royo (PSE) to the Commission (24 February 2000) Subject: Statements made by Commissioner Monti in Spain concerning state aid granted by the Spanish Government One of the undertakings given by the Prodi Commission was that the European Parliament would be notified of agreements and decisions before the press was informed. During Mr Montiís appearance before the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, we asked for information concerning the issue of the CTCs (costs of transition to competition) of the Spanish electricity companies. As time was short, the Commissioner stated that he would reply to the question in writing. To date, no response has been received. On 4 February Commissioner Monti travelled to Madrid where he met with members of the Spanish Government. Afterwards, he held a press conference, during the course of which he gave certain information on this issue, before the European Parliament was informed. Some of the information given ü possibly distorted by the Spanish Government ü implied a certain degree of agreement between the report of the independent expert and the position of the Spanish Government. This information is at odds with the views expressed by officials in the Commissionís Directorate-General for Competition, according to whom the conclusions of the independent report differ from the estimates of the Spanish Government áon four pointsí, which would imply a ásubstantial reduction in the figureí. In addition, the Commissioner himself ü according to press reports at least ü intends to investigate the issue, which hardly squares with the triumphalist interpretation of the Spanish Government. On what points does the independent expertís report differ from the estimates of the Spanish Government? On what points does the report differ from the estimates of the Spanish Electricity Commission? Will a copy of the report be provided to the European Parliament? On what factors is the Spanish Government basing its assumption that the Commission will find in its favour? Does Commissioner Monti consider that he has fulfilled the undertaking to inform Parliament before the press? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (28 March 2000) The consultantís mandate was to check that the assumptions taken as a basis by the Spanish authorities to calculate the ácosts of transition to competitioní (CTCs) complied with internationally recognised standards; it was not to calculate all admissible CTCs anew. Thus, a comparison cannot be made between the consultantís report and the report drawn up by the Comisión Nacional del Sistema ElØctrico. As was stated in the answer to Written Question E-348/00 by Ms Diez Gonzalez (1), the Commission is studying the results of the assessments and has requested the Spanish authorities to provide additional information. As regards the questions which were put the Commission with responsibility for to the Member of competition at the meeting of the Economic and Monetary Committee held on 11 January 2000 and to which he could not reply for want of time, the Commission would point out that, as agreed at that meeting, the Economic and Monetary Committee on 24 February 2000. it sent a written answer to the chair of 21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/175 Given that the consultantís report is confidential, the Commission does not plan to send a copy to Parliament. The Commission would emphasise that it is not in the least responsible for any views expressed in the report. The Commission is continuing to examine the matter and has not yet taken a decision. Parliament will be duly informed. (1) OJ C 303 E, 24. 10. 2000, p. 179. (2000/C 330 E/199) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0497/00 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (24 February 2000) Subject: Revision of the EWC Directive The German parent company of Fujitsu Siemens Computers has closed its company in Finland for reasons which are clearly not economic, in order to preserve jobs in Germany. In this connection the company was clearly in breach of its consultation and information obligations under the EWC directive, and of its obligation responsible (COM(1998) 612 fin. (1). Is it within the Commissionís power to monitor compliance with this directive and does it have plans to amend the directive to make it more binding? decision-makers the managers decision with discuss and its to (1) OJ C 2, 5. 1. 1999, p. 3. Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (3 April 2000) The Commission does not have any information at its disposal which enables it to conclude that the employee information and consultation obligations under Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (1) have not been respected in the case referred to by the Honourable Member. In any event, as this Directive has been properly incorporated into German law, it is first and foremost the task of the national authorities to assess any infringements of the rules in force which may be brought to their attention by those who feel they have been wronged. The Commission is currently looking at how this Directive has been implemented. Within the next few weeks it will adopt a report to the European Parliament and Council on this subject. The Commission has on several occasions emphasised the need for the proposal for a Council Directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees to be adopted by Parliament and the Council without delay. Clearly, the provisions contained in the proposal are not yet in force. (1) OJ L 254, 30. 9. 1994. (2000/C 330 E/200) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0500/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council (24 February 2000) Subject: Member State violations of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and the consolidated Treaty establishing the European Community Is the Council aware that, as of this moment, more than one hundred and eighty Members of the European Parliament have signed the following motion for a resolution: Mindful of the provisions of Article 3 of Protocol No 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) as amended by Protocol No 11 árequiring that