WRITTEN QUESTION E-3182/00 by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission. Health and safety regulations.
Date: 2000-10-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, labour law, legal action, occupational health

C 136 E/200

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

(2001/C 136 E/233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3182/00

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Health and safety regulations

At present the national legal systems operating in the Member States are powerless to act against firms
from other Member States who fail to pay fines for breaches of health and safety laws in the Member State
concerned. Does the Commission intend to propose any initiatives to remedy this situation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2000)

The Commission is aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member. The possibility of
bringing actions against companies based in other Member States has been considered in the area of health
and safety at work by the senior labour inspectors committee. Within this committee a working group
started in 1999 to consider under which circumstances the enforcement of one Member State(cid:146)s law in
relation to companies based in other Member States could be possible and where collaboration between
Member States would be required.

In this regard the working group is focusing on finding ways to ensure that actions concerning health and
safety offences will produce the same result when the responsible employer is based in a Member State
other than the State where the offence has occurred, as when the employer is based in the same Member
State.

Cross-border enforcement is closely linked to the question of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal
and administrative matters. Therefore, any analysis has to take into account the work that is being carried
out in this respect within the area of justice and home affairs.

The work that has been carried out so far in the field of mutual recognition, notably the Commission(cid:146)s
communication to the Council and the Parliament on mutual recognition of final decisions in criminal
matters (1), and the programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition that the
Council and the Commission are set to finalise by the end of the year 2000 (2), can be expected to provide
a useful basis for steps to be taken towards improved enforcement of sanctions for cross-border
infringements within the Union.

(1) COM(2000) 495 final.
(2) See Presidency conclusion No 37 of the European Council of Tampere.

(2001/C 136 E/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3183/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Enforcement of the Directive on the protection of wild birds in France

In 1997 the European Court of Justice ruled against France in case C166/97 (Commission v. France). The
Court found France guilty of failure to comply, within the prescribed period, with the requirements of the
Directive on the protection of wild birds (79/409/EEC) (1), as far as the Seine Estuary is concerned. Since
then, more than three years have passed and the area still remains unsatisfactorily protected, under the EU
Birds Directive. The European Commission, under Article 171, opened a new infringement procedure
against France in 1997. However, since then only a letter of formal notice has been sent to France for not
complying with the sentence of the Court of Justice. Recalling that the normal deadline of two months for