WRITTEN QUESTION E-2395/99 by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission. Restriction on European Commission officials' freedom of association.
Date: 1999-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European official, institutional reform, labour relations, personal data, trade union freedom, workers' representation

C 225 E/124

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

(2000/C 225 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2395/99

by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Restriction on European Commission officials(cid:146) freedom of association

On 13 October 1999 the Commission approved a document, submitted by Commissioner Kinnock, which
appears to impose a significant restriction on freedom of association within the institution, by introducing
new and unjustified representativeness criteria for unions already officially recognised as dialogue partners.

According to leaks that have spread, these new criteria would result in records being kept of officials and
unions they belong to.

Will Mr Prodi say if this is indeed the case and, if so, how he can explain the Commission(cid:146)s approval of a
step such as this which violates both freedom of association and the most basic right to confidentiality
regarding the choices made by workers?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2000)

The Commission has no intention of limiting the rights of association of staff or of trade unions and that
fact has repeatedly been made plain.

No Honourable Member has to rely on (cid:145)leaks(cid:146) or rumours. The full Commission proposal was published on
13 October and appears on the internet at http://www.cc.cec/home/admref/en/refdoc.html.

As stated in that Commission Proposal for a New Framework Agreement with the unions (Article 1): (cid:145)The
Commission confirms, in particular,
its support for the general principles relating to the role and the
responsibilities of the trade unions and staff associations with a view to involving them in the most
transparent, democratic and effective way possible in the life of the institution and inter alia in the process
of reform undertaken by the Commission(cid:146).

The Commission considers that the social dialogue is important for the conduct of good industrial
relations and to ensure effective staff representation. The current system is, however, based on a 25-year-
old Framework Agreement that no longer works in ways that meet needs in today(cid:146)s Institution. Change is
therefore sensible, necessary and in the professional interests of everyone.

is applied in many
The Honourable Member will be aware that the principle of (cid:145)representativeness(cid:146)
Member States and other democracies in order to ensure that consultations and conclusions of agreements
will be effective and undertaken on the basis that an organisation represents a significant proportion of the
workforce.

The main objectives of the Commission proposals are to clarify the role of the Central Staff Committee
and the unions in discussions with the administration and to put in place an effective structure for these
discussions; to define clearly which type of issues can be the subject of discussions ((cid:145)concertations(cid:146))
between the administration and the unions and what process should exist to deal with these issues; to
ensure that in the discussions with unions due account is taken of their representativeness; and to ensure
that
for the different participants in the social dialogue (unions, staff
committee) in terms of staff made available on secondment is commensurate with the role that they play
in the dialogue.

the administration(cid:146)s support

There is absolutely no proposal to record the names of trade union members as a means of verifying
representativeness. The reform proposal offered a (cid:145)check-out(cid:146) system by which the number of members of
a union could be verified and each union could show how many people it represents. As the proposal
made clear, however, there would be no obligation upon Unions to use such a system. Alternatives could
be used to provide accurate numerical information. Agreement upon an independent person or authority

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/125

for verification is one of the alternatives already under consideration by some trade unionists. The fact that
trade union members themselves have an interest in knowing how many colleagues belong to their
organisation is widely recognised.

No proposal made by the Commission would (cid:145)violate(cid:146)
freedom of association or any civil right to
confidentiality. Allegations that any such proposal has been made are completely without foundation in
fact.

(2000/C 225 E/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2401/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Priority of international

law over an EU directive, and compliance with provisions of treaties

concerning the (cid:145)Iron Rhine(cid:146)

The increase in the budget for trans-European networks confirms their importance for the European
Union. Both the construction of new transport infrastructure and the modernisation of existing infra-
structure are eligible for co-financing. The question of the Iron Rhine is a matter which is particularly
deserving of the Council(cid:146)s attention in this respect. By virtue of Article 12 of the Belgium-Netherlands
Arbitration Treaty (19 April 1839) and the Belgium-Netherlands treaties of 5 November 1842 and
13 January 1873 deriving therefrom (the (cid:145)Iron Rhine Treaty(cid:146)), Belgium is entitled to a link via the Dutch
district of Sittard to the German frontier. This international right of transit assumed physical shape
between 1869 and 1879 with the construction of the first cross-border rail link in Europe. However, after
the two world wars the Iron Rhine between Antwerp and the Ruhr in Germany fell into disuse. The Dutch
authorities are currently using national legislation to put obstacles in the way of resuming this interna-
tional rail link.

Does the Council acknowledge that by virtue of Article 12 of the Belgium-Netherlands Arbitration
1.
Treaty (19 April 1839), and the Belgium-Netherlands treaties of 5 November 1842 ands 13 January 1873
deriving therefrom, Belgium is entitled to a link via the Dutch district of Sittard to the German frontier?

Is Dutch environmental

2.
legislation pursuant to the habitats directive subordinate to the above-
mentioned international agreements, given that one of the contracting parties to the Belgium-Netherlands
Arbitration Treaty (Russia) is not an EU Member State? (N.B.: The Treaty of Vienna explicitly stipulates that
international law takes precedence over national law.)

In the light of the answers to questions 1 and 2, will the Council call on the Dutch authorities to
3.
comply with their obligations under the treaties, particularly as completion of the Iron Rhine is covered by
the general principle of loyalty to the Community? If not, why not?

Reply

(28 February 2000)

The question raised by the Honourable Member is not within the Council(cid:146)s competence.

(2000/C 225 E/134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2403/99

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Proposed EUR 2 million cutback of the Poseima programme

On 9 November the Commission submitted its fourth Letter of Amendment to the 2000 Budget to
Parliament, proposing to cut EUR 2 million from the Poseima programme, while proposing increases for
the Poseidom and Poseican programmes.