WRITTEN QUESTION E-1061/00 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission. Discrimination by a Member State between its own citizens.
Date: 2000-04-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, anti-discriminatory measure, infringement of EU law, paid leave, wage earner

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/203

Does the Commission believe that this clause contravenes single market legislation? In the Commission(cid:146)s
view, does this clause contravene the spirit of the EU(cid:146)s single market legislation and/or the single market
principle? Is Clause 19 likely to contravene the e-commerce directive (assuming it is enacted in accordance
with the Council(cid:146)s recent agreement on a common position)?

Does the approach of the UK Government undermine the home country/country of origin control
principle of the single market?

If it is the view of the Commission that Clause 19 breaches any EU laws or principles, what action does it
intend to take against the UK Government?

Has the Commission received any complaints from the public concerning Clause 19?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

The Commission is aware of the draft financial services and markets bill (FSMB).

The Commission is concerned to ensure that Clause 19, once it comes into force,
is consistent with
internal market principles and in particular, with the provisions in the draft Directive on a legal framework
for e-commerce (1). The Commission and the British authorities are in contact to this effect.

The Commission has not received any official complaints concerning clause 19, which is not yet in force.

(1) COM(98) 586 final.

(2000/C 374 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1061/00

by Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Discrimination by a Member State between its own citizens

With reference to my priority written question to the Commission (P-0555/00) (1), the Commission did
not, in my view, answer the question.

The Danish Government has put forward a draft law to amend Danish legislation on holidays. The
problem is that this law discriminates between workers with a collective agreement and those without an
agreement.

My question was whether, in the Commission(cid:146)s view, it is consistent with the Treaties for a Member State
to discriminate between its own citizens (cid:129) i.e. employees covered by a collective agreement as opposed to
employees without a collective agreement (cid:129) so that those who are covered by a collective agreement are
able to carry over days(cid:146) holiday to a new holiday year, while those not covered by an agreement are not
offered that possibility?

Is it, in the Commission(cid:146)s view, reasonable for a Member State to discriminate between its own citizens on
the basis of whether they are covered by a collective agreement or not?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000.

C 374 E/204

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.12.2000

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

As the Commission indicated in its reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question P-0555/00 (1), the
issue raised by the Honourable Member is the responsibility of the Danish authorities provided that Danish
legislation, if amended, guarantees that Article 7 of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993
concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (2) is respected.

legislation in Member States often
From a general point of view,
differentiates between the rights and obligations of individuals on various grounds. However, provided
that the differentiation is not made on grounds which violate Community law, the reasonableness of such
provisions must be assessed at national level.

it may, however, be stated that

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000.
(2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(2000/C 374 E/241)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1063/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: The Id al-Kabir festival (cid:129) violation of EU directives and French legislation

The Commission is doubtless aware of the fact that the religious slaughter of sheep at the annual Id al-Kabir
festival near Paris is brutal and illegal.

It is a blatant violation of French law and also of Council Directive 93/119 EC (1) which specifically forbids
the religious slaughter of animals in the open air. To make matters worse, the animals are often appallingly
treated before being slaughtered, which is a violation of Article 3 of Directive 93/119 EC.

1. Why has the Commission as the guardian of the European Treaties and legislation so far failed to act
in this matter?

2. When does it
Article 226) owing to its failure to implement Directive 93/119 EC?

intend to initiate proceedings against France for violating the Treaties (under

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

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Member States are responsible for the enforcement of Community legislation concerning the slaughter and
killing of animals in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December
1993, on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing.

The Commission is informed about the treatment of animals during this event. The inadequate slaughter-
house capacity in certain urban areas of France appears to be one of the reasons for the observations made
with regard to the treatment of animals during the festival.

The Commission considers that the French authorities must find a practical solution for the problem
concerning slaughterhouse capacity. On the other hand, treatment of animals which causes suffering
during restraint and slaughter is not acceptable.

The French authorities have been contacted concerning the need to improve the arrangements. On this
occasion, reassurances were received prior to the festival that the French authorities were taking a wide
range of measures including close contacts with the different Islamic religious and cultural groups to
involve them more widely in discussions on this issue in order to improve the situation with the view to
achieve better animal welfare and hygiene conditions.