WRITTEN QUESTION E-2641/99 by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission. Health and safety in the buildings of the European Institutions.
Date: 2000-01-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, building safety, contract staff, legal status, occupational safety, regulations for civil servants, right to justice, seat of institution

C 330 E/32

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

(2000/C 330 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2641/99

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Health and safety in the buildings of the European Institutions

Would the Commission indicate the legal status of the buildings of the European Institutions, with
particular regard to health and safety legislation? Is there a special regime for the European Parliament,
or are Members protected by Belgian legislation when in Brussels, French legislation when in Strasbourg,
and Luxembourg legislation when in Luxembourg?

What legal protection do MEPs and their employees, not to mention employees of Parliament itself, have
against an unsafe and unhealthy working environment?

To what extent has Community health and safety legislation been enforced within the buildings of the
European Institutions? Finally, what legal redress is available to those working in the European Institutions
against an unhealthy and unsafe working environment?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2000)

According to Article 5.1 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of
measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (1), every employer is
obliged to ensure the health and safety of the employees in all aspects connected with work. Thus the
European institutions, as employers and managers of large organisations, have to respect safety require-
ments and occupational hygiene as set out in a number of legal acts.

The minimum requirements on safety and health at work under Community law are defined in Directive
89/391/EEC and in various subsequent directives (2), all adopted on the basis of a Commission proposal
and with the agreement of the Parliament. As regards prevention and protection, Article 7 of Directive
89/391/EEC provides a framework of necessary measures to be taken by employers. The main require-
ments envisaged by the Directive are: evaluation of the workplaces and prevention of risks; monitoring the
plans and work sites for buildings to be used as a work place; analysis and monitoring of the hygiene of
the workplaces and of social equipment; development and transmission of instructions concerning safety
and hygiene; staff training as regards prevention, safety and health; co-ordination with, and information to,
contractors and sub-contractors on safety and health issues; and provision of of advice by the employer
and management to workers and their representatives on all questions arising from any of these points.

National health and safety legislation does not apply to European institutions. However, it is clear that
European institutions respect Community law in this area.

Furthermore, the Institutions are obviously permitted to establish a higher level of safety and health than
that specified in the legislation. The Commission has in fact set a higher standard with regard to the
characteristics of its buildings, regulations concerning smokers and non smokers, prevention of fire,
procedures to be followed in the event of evacuation or in the event of serious and immediate danger,
and food hygiene.

The legal redress available for officials working in the European institutions is the Staff Regulations
(Article 90) while for other staff it is as indicated in their contract, depending on its legal status.

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/33

Specific regulations are applicable for members of Parliament and their staff. Since the Commission is not
responsible for answering this part of the question, the Honourable Member is referred to the General
secretariat of the Parliament for further information.

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
(2) 89/654/EEC, 89/655/EEC and 89/656/EEC (OJ L 393, 30.12.1989); 90/269/EEC and 90/270/EEC (OJ L 156,

21.6.1990); 92/57/EEC and 92/58/EEC (OJ L 245, 26.8.1992).

(2000/C 330 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2643/99

by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Rules and regulations for inspection of abattoirs in the United Kingdom

Is the Commission satisfied with the UK Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulation 1995 which
purports to put into effect Directive 93/119/EC (1) on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or
killing?

How many complaints has the Commission received from British farmers about the implementation of this
Directive?

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, why does the slaughter of a lamb cost approximately EUR 17 in the UK and
less that EUR 5 in France?

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter and
killing was transposed into United Kingdom law and the Commission is not aware of any current
problems with regard to the implementation and enforcement of the relevant national legislation in that
Member State.

The Commission has not received any complaints from United Kingdom farmers or their organisations
with regard to this Directive. The Commission is, however, aware of the report of a working group on
regulation in the meat sector which was recently presented to the British authorities.

The costs of slaughter include both the normal commercial costs of abattoirs and the fees imposed for
official veterinary control. These costs are not identical in the Member States (1). Commercial costs, in
particular, may vary even within Member States according to such factors as the ownership of the abattoir
(private, municipal or co-operative), local labour costs, taxation and various other factors.

The Commission is unable, therefore, to comment on the particular figures which have been quoted.

If more detailed information about the alleged difference in costs and the basis on which they have been
calculated were to be supplied by the Honourable Member, the Commission would be prepared to
consider the matter further.

(1) Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 as amended and consolidated by Council Directive 96/43/EC
(OJ L 162, 1.7.1996) makes provisions for the harmonisation of rules on the financing of veterinary inspections
and controls. However article 5(3) there of enables Member States to charge fees exceeding the costs of Community
fees providing that the total fees charged do not exceed the costs of inspection.