WRITTEN QUESTION E-0047/01 by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission. The particular working conditions of workers employed by Saipem and Saitre belonging to the ENI group in Italy.
Date: 2001-01-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, application of EU law, labour law, legal working time, national implementing measure, oil industry, working conditions, working time

C 235 E/100

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

(2001/C 235 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0042/01

by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Refusal by Swiss firms to supply spare parts to clock- and watchmakers in the EU Member States

Many clock- and watchmakers in the EU whose customers bring them watches and clocks to be repaired
find it difficult to carry out these repairs because Swiss watch and clock manufacturers, who in any case
have a general agency in EU countries, refuse to supply spare parts, in case the clock- and watchmakers do
not have contracts with the particular manufacturers.

To what extent does this attitude constitute unlawful discrimination against various clock- and watch-
makers, and to what extent can the Commission intervene to prevent this practice, which is obstructing
people in carrying out their work?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Under block exemption Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the
application of Article 81(3) (ex Article 85) of the EC Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and
concerted practices (1) selective distribution systems as described in the question are exempted from the
prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty when the manufacturer(cid:146)s share of the relevant
market does not exceed 30 %. Below this threshold it is considered that the possible negative effects on
competition will usually be minimal or non-existent and are outweighed by the expected positive effects
resulting, for instance, from better service by trained staff. Above that threshold an individual examination
to assess possible anti-competitive effects, or enhancement of efficiency, may be required.

In order to be covered by the block exemption, the selective distribution agreement must in addition fulfil
the requirements of Articles 4 and 5 of the Regulation. The most important requirement (Article 4(2)) in
respect of the question raised by the Honourable Member is that the watch manufacturer may not impose
a restriction on the sale of spare parts to independent repairers if these spare parts are not produced by the
watch manufacturer himself. In other words, if these spare parts are produced by another undertaking,
attempts by the watch manufacturer to oblige that undertaking to supply him alone could result in
withdrawal of the block exemption

(1) OJ L 336, 29.12.1999.

(2001/C 235 E/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0047/01

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: The particular working conditions of workers employed by Saipem and Saitre belonging to the

ENI group in Italy

Employees who carry out drilling work for Saipem and Saitre, companies in the ENI group (Italy) which
are involved in oil prospecting, work 84 hours per week. This category of worker is employed between 15
and 18 days per month, starting at 8.00 a.m. and finishing at 8.00 p.m. They work in all weathers, with
temperatures ranging from 40 (cid:176)C in summer to below zero in winter. These particular working conditions
expose this category to a higher than average risk of accidents. They are not yet recognised as a category
exposed to the risks of strenuous work and do not therefore enjoy the relevant safeguards. In view of the
above, can the Commission ascertain whether the above details are true, whether the working hours of
those carrying out drilling work for Saipem and Saitre contravene Community legislation on working

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/101

hours, and whether this particular category of workers should, because of the working hours, the specific
climatic conditions under which they work and the high risk of accidents, be recognised as entitled to the
special safeguards for strenuous work?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2001)

The Commission was not aware of the specific case raised by the Honourable Member. However, the
provisions of Council Directive 93/104/EC, of 23 November 1993, concerning certain aspects of the
organisation of working time (1), in principle, apply to oil drilling work carried out on land. Under this
Directive, workers are entitled to a minimum daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours per 24-hour
period; a rest break where the working day is longer than six hours; an uninterrupted rest period of
24 hours for each seven-day period and a limit on the length of night work to an average of eight hours in
any 24-hour period. Derogations to these rules are allowed in certain limited circumstances. In addition,
the Directive provides that the average working time for workers for each seven-day period, including
overtime, shall not exceed 48 hours. For the calculation of this average, the Directive allows a reference
period of four months (with a possibility of limited derogations from this rule). Finally, workers are
entitled to paid annual leave of at least four weeks.

Italy has yet to notify officially the Commission of all of its national implementing measures. The Court of
Justice has condemned Italy for failure to adopt measures implementing this Directive (Case C-386/98,
Commission v. Italian Republic, judgment of 9 March 2000 (2)).

In the case of oil drilling work carried out at sea, in accordance with Article 1(3) of Council Directive 93/
104/EC, this type of activity ((cid:145)other work at sea(cid:146)) initially fell outside the scope of the Directive. However, it
falls within the scope of Directive 2000/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000
amending Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to
cover sectors and activities excluded from that Directive (3). The implementation deadline for this Directive
is 1 August 2003 (except for doctors in training).

Drilling to prospect for minerals (hydrocarbons, whether oil or gas) has warranted special treatment at
Community level given that such activities are fraught with high risk for workers.

As is the case for any other activity, framework 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 (4) is
fully applicable here. Nevertheless, given the particular conditions of work on on-shore and off-shore
installations, an individual directive was adopted, viz. Council Directive 92/91/EEC of 3 November 1992
concerning the minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers in the
mineral-extracting industries through drilling (5).

Among other things, the annex to this Directive sets out minimum health and safety requirements
regarding the stability and solidity of installations, organisation and supervision, protection from harmful
atmospheres and explosion risks, and as regards outdoor workplaces. In this connection the minimum
requirement mentioned in 18.3(a) of Part A of the Annex should be singled out, which says that outdoor
workplaces must be arranged in such a way that workers are protected against inclement weather
conditions.

Furthermore, other horizontal directives still apply in this sector, inter alia, Council Directive 86/188/EEC
of 12 May 1986 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to noise at work (6);
Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health
requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (7) as amended by Council Directive 95/
63/EC of 5 December 1995 (8); Council Directive 89/656/EEC of 30 November 1989 on the minimum
health and safety requirements for the use by workers of personal protective equipment at the work-
place (7); Council Directive 90/269/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum health and safety requirements

C 235 E/102

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

for the manual handling of loads where there is a risk particularly of back injury to workers (9). Inspection
and monitoring of application of national legislation which transposes these directives is the responsibility
of the competent national authorities.

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
(2) ECR 2000, p. I-1277.
(3) OJ L 195, 1.8.2000.
(4) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
(5) OJ L 348, 28.11.1992.
(6) OJ L 137, 24.5.1986.
(7) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.
(8) OJ L 335, 30.12.1995.
(9) OJ L 156, 21.6.1990.

(2001/C 235 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0049/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(23 January 2001)

Subject: Common Foreign and Security Policy and the NMD initiative

The President of the United States, George W. Bush, is a great supporter of the National Missile Defense
(NMD) shield. The shield system is supposed to defend the US against a missile attack. However, the
initiative is a threat to security on the continent of Europe. The Russian government has pointed out that
the NMD system is incompatible with the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) Treaty of 1972. Robin Cook, Britain(cid:146)s
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has expressed fears of a new arms race. If the US Administration
really does want to create a missile shield it needs the support of the UK government. One part of the
shield would be situated in North Yorkshire.

1. What does the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy think of the
National Missile Defence system?

Does the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy believe that the NMD

2.
system is compatible with the ABM Treaty of 1972? If so, on what grounds?

3.
Does the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy share the fears of Robin
Cook, Britain(cid:146)s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of a new arms race if the United States develops the
missile shield? If not, on what grounds does the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security
Policy reject Mr Cook(cid:146)s views?

In view of its replies to questions 1, 2 and 3, does the High Representative for the Common Foreign

4.
and Security Policy support the siting of part of the missile shield in North Yorkshire?

Reply

(14 May 2001)

There is so far no Council position on the National Missile Defence System. Nevertheless at the 2000 Non-
proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York, the European Union reaffirmed the importance of
the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signed in 1972 by the US and the Soviet Union as one of the pillars
of strategic stability. Furthermore the EU stated that it wishes to see that Treaty preserved.