WRITTEN QUESTION E-1964/99 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission. Impact of the Schengen visa on competition.
Date: 1999-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Central and Eastern European countries, EU market, Schengen Agreement, carrier, labour market, migrant worker, restriction on competition, road transport

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/37

(2000/C 225 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1964/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Impact of the Schengen visa on competition

In recent years,
it has become increasingly common among Austrian haulage companies to employ
citizens from central and eastern Europe holding a six-month Schengen visa but no work permit as drivers
for journeys within Europe for financial reasons. As a result of this common practice, Union citizens have
found it increasingly difficult to find employment in this sector.

In view of this, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1.

Is the Commission aware of the above-mentioned practice?

2. Approximately how many people from central and eastern European countries are granted six-month

Schengen visas both in Austria in particular and in the EU as a whole?

3. What measures does the Commission consider to be appropriate to curtail this practice which is

detrimental both to the labour market and to competition in the Union?

4. Has the Commission investigated this matter?

5. Does the Commission consider that this practice is compatible with EU competition law?

6.

7.

If not, what measures does the Commission intend to take to curtail this practice?

If so, how does the Commission justify its position?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

1.
The Commission is aware of the increasing number of drivers from outside the Community that are
employed often illegally by haulage firms in the Community. The Commission is concerned about the
distorting effects of this practice on road haulage competition within the Community and considers this
issue to be a very pressing problem within the national and international road haulage industry.

As regards in particular the practice of Austrian hauliers to employ drivers from East European States as
described by the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to point out that this is illegal according
to the relevant Austrian rules.

2.

The Commission is not in possession of the information requested.

Nevertheless, the Commission would underline that the Schengen acquis does not include provisions
concerning rights of employment. A uniform (cid:145)Schengen(cid:146) visa is a travel visa valid for one or more entries,
provided that neither the length of a continuous visit nor the total length of successive visits exceeds three
months in any half-year, from the date of first entry (Article 11 of the Schengen Convention). The length
of a visit covered by a uniform (cid:145)Schengen(cid:146) visa is not always up to three months per six month period: the
length of visit fixed by Article 11(1)(a) constitutes a maximum limit.

Attention should also be drawn to the pending Commission proposal for a Council and Parliament
directive on the conditions for posting of third country workers in the framework of provision of
services (1). The proposal aims at introducing the (cid:145)EC service provision card(cid:146)
to be granted by the
authorities of the Member State where a service provider is established. The proposal does not apply to
the transport sector, but underlines that only those third country workers can be posted in the framework
of cross border provision of services if they are and have been lawfully employed for a certain time (at least
6 months) in the Member State where the employer is established. This element has been introduced to
avoid direct recruitment of third country nationals in third country countries, a situation described in the
written question.

C 225 E/38

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

In order to grasp the extent of the problem of the often illegal use of non-Community drivers,
3. and 4.
the Commission has asked the Member States to provide an overview of the diverse social, labour and
transport rules applied by them in this area. Obviously this is only a first step in exploring possible ways
to address this issue. Once the Commission has gained an overview of the relevant rules and details
determining current practice, it will consider what action must be taken.

5. to 7.
It cannot be excluded that the use of non-Community drivers on Community vehicles in intra-
Community transport may have distorting effects on road haulage competition. The issue has to be
analysed and solutions must be sought, as pointed out above, by preference within the framework of the
diverse social, labour and transport rules applied in this area.

(1) OJ C 67, 10.3.1999.

(2000/C 225 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1966/99

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: EU project (cid:145)Natura 2000(cid:146) (cid:129) Repercussions on the situation of individuals under private law

Various Austrian federal states have registered certain areas of their territory under the EU project (cid:145)Natura
2000(cid:146) including the Federal State of Lower Austria which has registered 31,63 % of its total surface area.
Under this project, the Member States are obliged to ensure compliance with the directive on the
preservation of bird life and the (cid:145)flora-fauna-habitat directive(cid:146) in the designated areas. In drawing up the
corresponding lists of designated areas, most landowners were neither asked nor informed even though
this entails major restrictions on property rights and use.

In view of this can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What department or agency in the EU is responsible for the implementation of this project?

2. Which areas have been registered for the (cid:145)Natura 2000(cid:146) project in the various Austrian federal states

and in Lower Austria in particular?

3. What are the consequences for landowners? Can the Commission provide detailed information in this

regard?

4. What legal provisions are there for owners of land in (cid:145)Natura 2000(cid:146) registered areas to opt out of the

project?

5. Can a local authority which has registered under the (cid:145)Natura 2000(cid:146) project withdraw such a

registration?

6. What are the consequences for landowners in such cases?

7. Are the actions of the Federal State of Lower Austria in registering certain areas under the (cid:145)Natura

2000(cid:146) project without the prior consent of landowners compatible with current EU law?

8.

9.

If not, what does the Commission intend to do about these illegal actions? To what extent are
landowners, who are affected by the actions of their Federal State of Lower Austria which are
incompatible with EU law, obliged to comply with the provisions restricting property rights contained
in the abovementioned directives?

If so, is the Commission of the opinion that these actions are at least questionable in the light of the
provisions of the ECHR (restrictions on the rights of property owners, independence of authorities
interfering with the rights of individuals under private law)?