WRITTEN QUESTION E-2098/99 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Failure of a Member State to comply with ICCAT recommendations on freezing the fishing effort.
C 219 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 Do slaughter premiums and similar subsidies affect the extent to which live animals are transported in the European Union and in third countries? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (17 December 1999) In the 1998 financial year the Community spent approximately € 497 million on market measures connected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), of which € 96 million in premiums went on the slaughter of young male calves, € 116 million on the early slaughter of calves, € 243 million on the United Kingdomís bovine slaughter programme and € 42 million on compulsory selective slaughter in the United Kingdom, Portugal, France and Ireland. € 163,8 million was spent to support the German, Spanish and Dutch markets following an outbreak of swine fever. Slaughter expenditure in 1998 on veterinary measures in their strictest sense amounted to € 34 million on the programmes to eradicate animal diseases and € 38,5 million on the classical swine fever epidemic. The Commission is not in a position to assess the effects of the above on animal transport levels in the Community, although they must have been slight given the type of aid involved and its allocation. This expenditure can have had no effect in third countries, since the aid is only intended for Community livestock. (2000/C 219 E/108) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2098/99 by Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) to the Commission (19 November 1999) Subject: Failure of a Member State to comply with ICCAT recommendations on freezing the fishing effort It is apparent from Commission Working Document SEC(1998) 447 of 17 March 1998 that, in 1997, the fishing for albacore (Thunnus alalunga) comprised 11 vessels using drift nets. However, Irish fleet according to the list which the Commission possesses of vessels authorised to fish for tuna with drift nets and other fishing gear, this year the said fleet grew in size to 18 vessels using drift nets and 16 using other gear. Besides amounting to a blatant breach of Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 (1) aimed at abolishing drift nets, such an increase constitutes a gross violation of the ICCAT recommendation which the fleets should not exceed that Commission undertook to honour, under which the fishing effort of registered over the period 1993-1995. The fact transposed the aforementioned recommendation into Community law does not free the EU Member States from their obligation to comply with it, as Mr Cavaco, former Director-General of DG XIV, made very clear in a notice on the NEAFC recommendations. the Commission has not yet that In view of the aforementioned facts, what does the Commission intend to do to prevent any further increase in the Irish fleetís fishing effort as regards stocks of albacore? How does it intend to compel the said Member State to comply with Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 and the ICCAT recommendations, and what penalties does it envisage imposing on that Member State for repeatedly displaying such serious disregard for Community and international rules and placing albacore populations in peril, in breach of those recommendations? When does it intend to transpose the ICCAT recommendations into Community law in order to prevent their absence from being used as a pretext for increasing the fishing effort? (1) OJ L 171, 17. 6. 1998, p. 1. 1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/91 Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 December 1999) The Honourable Member is requested to refer to the answers given to her Written Questions P-1537/99 (1) and P-2067/99 (2). The Commission is in the process of drafting proposals for a Regulation to transpose the recommenda- tions made by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and other multilateral organisations that manage tuna stocks. The proposals are due to be adopted by the Commission in January 2000. (1) OJ C 170 E, 20. 6. 2000. (2) See page 82. (2000/C 219 E/109) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2103/99 by Marie-Noºlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission (12 November 1999) Subject: Collective redundancies at Michelin In view of the numerous scandals concerning collective redundancies (for example, the Renault Vilvorde affair), in particular redundancies which are merely aimed at boosting shareholdersí profits, what does the Commission intend to do in order to update the directive on collective redundancies so as to improve protection for employeesí rights and to avoid jobs being axed? In the specific case of Michelin, what measures does the Commission intend to take in order to ensure that the company complies in full with the provisions of the directive? it would be appropriate to introduce provisions enabling Does the Commission not consider that employees to challenge the justification for redundancies on economic grounds before they are imple- mented? Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (30 November 1999) The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that its proposal of 11 November 1998 on informing and consulting employees in the European Community (1) aims precisely to complement Community and national rules in force in this area and to make them more effective, particularly the provisions of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (2). Parliament delivered an opinion on this proposal at first reading and a common position from the Council is now awaited; the Commission considers that the Council should speed up its work on this. The Commission does not have any information to suggest that the provisions of Directive 98/59/EC and those which transpose this Directive into French law have been contravened by the company mentioned, due to the general nature of the announcement that 7 500 jobs will be cut in the next three years. With regard to checking the justification for collective redundancies, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that rules allowing employees to contest a redundancy that is unfounded or improper are in place in all Member States. This subject is mentioned in the Commission Communication of 25 November 1998 entitled Modernising the organisation of work ü A positive approach to changeí (3), among the questions which the social partners are invited to examine in the context of áallowing new forms of contractual relationships and career paths to develop. while providing security to workers, e. g. in terms of employment continuity í (point 2. 1. 3 of the above Communication). (1) OJ C 2, 5. 1. 1999. (2) OJ L 225, 12. 8. 1998. (3) COM(98) 592 final