Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 100kWORD 18k
3 December 2018
P-006111-18
Question for written answer P-006111-18
to the Commission
Rule 130
Laura Agea (EFDD)

 Subject:  Relocation of Ball Beverage Packaging to Serbia

The American multinational Ball Beverage Packaging, which produces aluminium cans, has decided to close the historic plant of San Martino sulla Marrucina (Chieti) and relocate production to Serbia, where labour costs are lower. As far as the 70 workers affected are concerned, it has merely given them the option of relocating to the company’s plants in other EU countries.

This enterprise has decided on this course of action even though it is not in crisis and has not suffered any industrial accidents for over 10 years; moreover, the rate of absenteeism at the plant lies at 0.2%, well below all the national averages.

In the light of the above, will the Commission establish whether Serbia may have directly or indirectly provided incentives for the company to relocate to Serbia by guaranteeing that it can provide Bell Beverage Packaging with tax and other conditions that are more favourable than those obtaining in the EU, thereby effectively distorting or threatening to distort competition and violating Article 73, paragraph 1, of the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement?

Original language of question: IT 
Last updated: 6 December 2018Legal notice