WRITTEN QUESTION P-0250/02 by Elisa Damião (PSE) to the Commission. Freedom of movement for workers.
Date: 2002-01-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: free movement of workers, infringement of EU law

C 147 E/244

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

Standard EN 1384 defines and quantifies the basic requirements of Council Directive 89/686/EEC of
21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective
equipment (PPE) (1). Whilst application of the standard is voluntary, it ensures a high level of protection for
users, in accordance with the objectives of this Directive adopted under Article 95 of the EC Treaty. It has
not been the subject of a safeguard clause,
i.e. officially called into question by the Member States’
administrations.

The work on standardising riding helmets forms part of a general programme of rationalising and
standardising normative requirements in the field of head protection. It should, however, be stressed that
the experts in the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) Working Group responsible for standard
EN 1384 (TC 158 WG5) have very different approaches and points of view regarding the requirements
and methods of measurement to be adopted. These divergences within WG5 have been echoed at
Parliament level, as pointed out by the Honourable Member, particularly through petition No 1030/96 of
28 April 1996, which closed on 20 March 2000.

In this context, the CEN is continuing to carry out technical work on the speedy revision of standard EN
1384:1996, on the basis of a Commission mandate. The Commission, which is responsible for
implementing Directive 89/686/EEC, is paying particularly close attention to standard EN 1384, and has
worked more on this standard than on the 300 or so other standards concerning PPE put together.

Leaving aside the technical differences among the CEN experts, applications for the financing of study
projects which seek to support standardisation work are examined by the Commission under financial
procedures which seek to ensure the transparency and optimum allocation of the resources at its disposal.
The funding application for a prototype riding helmet mentioned in the Honourable Member’s question
forms part of a study for which a quotation has been submitted to the Commission by the CEN. This
quotation made provision for the research subsidies to be divided between representatives of the two main
opposing groupings within this working group.

The Commission informed the CEN in a letter of 13 September 2000 that whilst there is no objection to
the principle of funding the proposed tests, it is nevertheless necessary to follow the transparent procedure
of a public invitation to tender in order to ensure the maximum possible level of impartiality. The
Commission also asked the CEN, in a letter of 22 October 2001, to draw up a new quotation which takes
account of how the work has developed in the interim.

(1) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989.

(2002/C 147 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0250/02

by Elisa Damião (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2002)

Subject: Freedom of movement for workers

Freedom of movement
the Treaty, Directives
91/533/EEC (1) and 96/71/EEC (2), Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (3), Regulation (EEC) No 1612/1968 (4)
and the judgments of the Court of Justice relating to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.

is covered by Articles 39 and 40 of

for workers

The Commission was to have submitted a report to the European Parliament and the Council assessing
Directive 96/71/EEC in December 2001. There are a large number of cases where EU workers have been
adversely affected by illegal recruitment, unequal pay and working conditions, and violations of the
principles of national and Community legislation on social protection and contracts and of fundamental
rights. Moreover, the integration of the labour market implies worker mobility.

Taking this into account, can the Commission assess the irregularities detected in the Member States as
regards national and Community legislation, as well as the measures taken to prevent and punish these
practices, particularly on the part of agencies supplying temporary staff, which are operating both legally
and illegally on a large scale?

(1) OJ L 288, 18.10.1991, p. 32.
(2) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.
(4) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2.

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/245

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The Honourable Member refers to various practices, which she describes as illegal, being carried out in
violation of the various Community instruments.

It is up to the Member State concerned, through its competent national authorities and ultimately the
national courts,
to check that operators established in that State comply with national provisions
implementing the Community measures in question.

With regard to Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996
concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1), Article 8 provides that
the Commission shall review the operation of the Directive with a view to proposing the necessary
amendments to the Council where appropriate. The task of reviewing the Directive began in 2001. Reports
on the transposition of the Directive in the fifteen Member States are being prepared and a survey has
been carried out among national administrations concerning practical
implementing measures. On the
basis of this work,
the Commission will be able to decide what action to take in respect of the
abovementioned Article.

(1) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

(2002/C 147 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0251/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Treatment of fish with water-binding substances to increase their total weight

There have been reports in the German specialist press about a method of processing fish and fish
products which misleads consumers. Products are said to be in use in the Netherlands which bind excess
water, thus artificially increasing the weight of the final product. These substances, known collectively as
‘Tari’, are allegedly used in both fillets and whole fish. The active ingredients are said to be proteins, so that
the European ban on the use of phosphates does not apply. The proteins added are not listed on the label
of the final product, in violation of the relevant legislation.

The consumer suffers because the 5-15 % weight gain, which is reflected in the price of the product, is
entirely lost when the fish is cooked. Furthermore, the consumer is not informed that the substances have
been added.

As well as this, the parts of the industry which do not use these unfair methods are affected by the
competitive disadvantage they suffer.

1.

Is the Commission aware of fish being treated in this way, in the Netherlands or elsewhere?

2. What can be done to prevent this practice, which is prejudicial to the interests of consumers and
honest producers alike?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2002)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by
the Honourable Member. It will inform her of its findings.