WRITTEN QUESTION E-2596/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Conduct of a transfrontier supermarket chain in breach of the rules on competition — collective wage agreements and general standards of propriety.
Date: 2001-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: collective agreement, competition law, infringement of EU law, labour law, labour relations, supermarket, working conditions

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/131

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

The existing provisions and procedures in the field of border controls allow the authorities to refuse entry
to persons in possession of forged or falsified documents (passports, visa stickers, etc.).

Documents which are apparently in order but have been obtained in an irregular or fraudulent manner
will be detected by border checks only if the Member State in which they originated is aware that they
have been issued and has informed its partner States (circulation of serial numbers, issuing department,
period covered, etc).

The Honourable Member’s concerns, shared by the Commission, were recently echoed by the Council
(Justice and Home Affairs) on 20 September 2001, which declared its support for a variety of measures to
step up the fight against terrorism within the European Union. In particular, the Council called on the
Member States to exercise the utmost vigilance when issuing identity documents, visas and residence
permits. The Commission is planning to present in the near future a communication on preventing and
immigration which, among other things, will deal with the issues raised by the
combating illegal
Honourable Member.

(2002/C 115 E/134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2596/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Conduct of a transfrontier supermarket chain in breach of the rules on competition / collective

wage agreements and general standards of propriety

Can the Commission confirm that the ALDI supermarket chain, which has its headquarters in
1.
Germany and branches in various Member States and was created by Theo and Karl Albrecht, two wealthy
Europeans worth an estimated EUR 28 billion, seeks to keep its costs down not only by offering its wares
to the customer in boxes piled high on pallets, with no bar-code readers to show the prices at the tills, but,
above all, by requiring from its staff a high workrate, a high rate of absence through illness and, because of
staff shortages, closing of shops on a few afternoons per week?

2.
Can it also confirm that this transfrontier company asks its staff to sign contracts which require them
to work 21,5 hours of voluntary overtime per month, dismisses any staff members who complain, refuses
to meet the press, suddenly transfers staff members to branches dozens of kilometres from home, harasses
in their homes staff members who are ill and imposes a 48-hour working week, requiring staff to work
during the shorter working hours to which they are entitled?

Does the Commission deem it acceptable for an international company operating within the
3.
European Union in the manner described above in Questions 1 and 2 to infringe Union law, collective
wage agreements, agreements as to transparency and general standards of propriety?

Is this state of affairs helped by the fact that the company directors are frequently resident in a
4.
Member State other than the one in which their establishments are located, with the result that those
directors may hide away and not be accessible to anybody?

5. What is the Commission doing to counteract the misuse of internal frontiers and the undermining of
the customary relationship between employers and employees in the European Union and to nullify the
competitive advantages vis-à-vis other undertakings / operating properly in accordance with the law and
with collective wage agreements / arising from such misuse?

Source: De Volkskrant (a Dutch newspaper), issue published on 3 September 2001

C 115 E/132

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

The Commission has no specific information about the supermarket chain mentioned by the Honourable
Member.

The Commission takes the view that it is up to the national authorities to judge whether enterprises have
infringed legislation and/or collective agreements on working conditions.

The fact that the headquarters of an enterprise can be located in another Member State does not prevent
the legislation of the Member State in which the workers usually work from being applied.

In its Green Paper on corporate social responsibility (1) adopted on 18 July 2001, the Commission has
underlined that a major challenge for enterprises today is to attract and retain skilled workers. In this
context, relevant measures could include life-long learning, empowerment of employees, better information
throughout the company, better balance between work, family and leisure, greater workforce diversity,
equal pay and career prospects for women, profit sharing and share ownership schemes and concern for
employability as well as job security.

(1) COM(2001) 366 final.

(2002/C 115 E/135)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2601/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Risk to consumers caused by germ contamination of meat

1.
Is the Commission aware that the stress caused to animals when being transported can result in
massive infiltration of germs into their intestinal mucous membranes, which passes from there via the
lymph and blood systems into the entire organism, with a result that eating organs such as the liver and
spleen in particular, but also muscle meat, can produce food poisoning in consumers, which in severe
cases can prove fatal?

2.
Even on relatively unstressful journeys tests have found intestinal germs in the carcasses of 20 to
25 % of animals. As the animals affected appear to be healthy, bacteriological tests are not usually carried
out and the consumer is therefore not protected from stress-related germ-contamination of meat. Is the
Commission making any effort to tackle this consumer protection problem, and if so how?

It has to be assumed that animals for slaughter are subject to stress not related to transport. Is the
3.
Commission aware of this risk to consumers? What measures to prevent stress in animals for slaughter has
the Commission adopted, and what checks are carried out on compliance with the existing rules?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2001)

The Commission is aware that physiological changes may be induced in animals by stress, as referred to by
the Honourable Member. Community legislation takes account of relevant scientific and technical
knowledge in the fields of food hygiene and animal welfare.