WRITTEN QUESTION E-0143/02 by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Eligibility of workers to stand for election to works councils and joint works councils.
Date: 2002-02-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Türkiye, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, application of EU law, equal treatment, infringement of EU law, labour law, migrant worker, right to stand for election, trade union election

C 160 E/188

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

(2002/C 160 E/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0143/02

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 February 2002)

Subject: Eligibility of workers to stand for election to works councils and joint works councils

Since joining the EEA and then the European Union, the Republic of Austria has been required to
implement and apply Community law. This includes the rights of migrant workers from countries which
are contracting parties to the EEA Agreement, and in particular the right to stand for election to bodies
representing the interests of workers, which is covered by the non-discrimination principle enshrined in
the second paragraph of Article 48 of the EC Treaty (free movement of persons). Excluding workers who
belong to Chambers of Labour and who come from the countries concerned from standing for election to
bodies representing the interests of workers is contrary to Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1).
The Commission therefore referred the case to the Court on 16 October 1997, and brought infringement
proceedings against Austria on 9 July 1999. In spite of this, there has not yet been a majority in the
National Assembly in favour of adapting the relevant laws. On 29 December 2000 the Commission
criticised the Austrian laws again in a reasoned opinion, and called on the Austrian government for the
last time to take the appropriate measures.

The exclusion of Turkish workers from elections to the Vorarlberg Chamber of Labour led to the election
being legally challenged in the first half of 1999, and then to a case in the Supreme Court. The
Constitutional Court in Vienna referred the decision to the European Court of Justice.

Has the Austrian government reacted to the Commission’s reasoned opinion, and if so how?

Given that no appropriate measures have yet been taken, has the Commission brought proceedings before
the European Court of Justice against Austria, or does it intend to do so?

the Constitutional Court’s referral have any influence on the substance of

Will
infringement proceedings, and if so, in what way?

the Commission’s

Does the Commission intend to contest both Article 21 of
kammergesetz) and Article 53 of
proceedings, or only one of the two?

the Labour Constitution Act

the Chamber of Labour Act

(Arbeiter-
(Arbeitsverfassungsgesetz) during the

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2002)

The Austrian authorities
unsatisfactory.

replied to the reasoned opinion in April 2001 which was considered

The Commission therefore proceeded to the next stage of the infringement procedure and referred the case
to the Court of Justice on 4 December 2001 (Case C-465/01).

The Austrian Constitutional Court’s referral does not have any influence on the substance of
the
infringement procedure, in which the Commission contests both Article 21 of the Chamber of Labour Act
(Arbeiterkammergesetz) and Article 53 subpara (1) of the Labour Constitution Act (Arbeitsverfassungs-
gesetz).