# CE2004078EN.01059601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/596 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/596

---

(2004/C 78 E/0630)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3580/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   EU working time legislation

Subject:

Further to its 15 October answer to my written question E-2611/03 (1), when did the Commission issue the two invitations to tender for a study on the consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the SIMAP case (2)?

1

2

Why did it wait almost two and a half years before issuing the invitation to tender?

Does it believe such a completed study would have been useful for the preparation of its Communication on working time which is due by the end of 2003, and which it has already indicated will address the implications of the SIMAP judgment?

What views were presented by the Irish Government's representative at the meeting of national experts referred to by the Commission in its answer to written question E-0535/03 (3)?

3

Have any approaches been made to the Commission by the Irish Government requesting a possible Irish ‘derogation’ from the scope of Directive 2000/34/EC (4) in relation to junior doctors? What is or would be the Commission's response to such a request?

4

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

(16 January 2004)

As regards the invitations to tender for a study on the consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the SIMAP Case (5), the Commission dispatched the letters of invitation to tender on 11 April 2002 and 18 December 2002.

5

The study was launched with a view to preparing for the communication on working time.

As for the Commission's meeting with national experts on working time, the Commission would refer to its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2611/03 (6). It must point out, however, that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss the transposition of Directive 2000/34/EC (7), but the Commission's future communication on working time. At all events, no Member State reported difficulties with the transposition of that Directive.

6

7

Lastly, the Commission wishes to make it clear that no derogations can be made from the scope of Directive 2000/34/EC and none of the Member Sates has submitted a request for derogation.

---

(1)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 187.

1

(2)  Judgment of the Court of 3 October in case C-303/98, Sindicato de Medicos de Asistencia Publica (SIMAP) and Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana.

2

(3)  OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 199.

3

(4)  OJ L 195, 1.8.2000, p. 41.

4

(5)  Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2000 in Case C-303/98, Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública (SIMAP) and Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana.

5

(6)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 187.

6

(7)  Directive 2000/34/CE of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 amending Council Directive 93/104/CE concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that Directive, OJ L 195, 1.8.2000.

7

---