WRITTEN QUESTION E-0345/02 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU standards governing whistle-blowers in the private sector.
Date: 2002-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: exchange of information, information policy, legislative procedure, private sector

C 160 E/210

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

(2002/C 160 E/270)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0339/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Working time directive

The current working time directive permits individuals to opt out of the 48-hour work week maximum. If
this opt-out is removed, many businesses, especially seasonal businesses, will be forced to hire more staff
and increase their overall costs.

Has the Commission done a full impact assessment study on the effects of removing this opt-out clause?

Has the Commission seriously considered the effects on seasonal workers, such as, but not excluded to,
those working on formula one racing cars?

Would the Commission please provide details of the study and its findings?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

Article 18(1)(b)(i) of the working time Directive (1) lays down that a Member State shall have the option not
to apply Article 6 (maximum weekly working time of 48 hours) provided he has first obtained the worker’s
agreement to perform such work.

The United Kingdom is the only Member State having used this possibility not to apply Article 6.

Article 18(1)(b)(i) also provides for the re-examination of this clause in 2003. It states as follows:

Before the expiry of a period of seven years from the date referred to in (a) [23 November 1996], the
Council shall, on the basis of a Commission proposal accompanied by an appraisal report, re-examine
the provisions of this point (i) and decide on what action to take.

An invitation to tender for a study on the effects of this clause has recently been sent to independent
national experts. The study should provide an overview of the application of Article 18(1) (b) (i) in the
United Kingdom. It should notably take good account of the social partners’ opinion and analyse the case
law of the bodies responsible for the enforcement of national rules concerning working time.

The Commission will in due course prepare the appraisal report on this issue, based on the conclusions of
the study and on its own findings.

(1) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time,

OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(2002/C 160 E/271)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0345/02

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: EU standards governing whistle-blowers in the private sector

‘The Economist’ (issue of 12.-18.1.2002) raises an important issue when dealing with whistle-blowers in
the private sector.

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/211

The Commission’s internal rules on whistle-blowing are at the development stage and, while some
directives do contain a few provisions dealing with this activity, horizontal provisions are lacking at EU
level, particularly where whistle-blowing is not carried out by an official. Nevertheless, in view of the
competitive situation of private companies operating in the internal market, the existence of uniform
minimum standards could be of considerable significance.

Has the Commission considered the impact of the absence of whistle-blowing rules from the common
labour market provisions on the functioning of the internal market?

Does it consider it necessary to draw up common rules to safeguard the position of employees of
companies operating in the EU when blowing the whistle on the malpractices or negligence of their own
employer?

Into what legislative project could such provisions most rapidly be incorporated or would it be better to
begin drawing up a separate proposal dealing with them?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

There is no Community labour law on whistle-blowers and this issue is not addressed in the Social Policy
Agenda adopted by the European Council in Nice (7 and 9 December 2000).

Furthermore, this matter is not on the agenda of the social partners at Union level.

(2002/C 160 E/272)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0352/02

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Classification of ‘fresh pasteurised milk’

Current Community legislation on the labelling, presentation and advertising of food products lays down
rules to protect the consumer, stipulating that packages should clearly indicate not only the exact nature
but also the characteristics of products.

Community legal provisions concerning the production and marketing of milk for human consumption do
not cover the product classified as ‘fresh pasteurised milk’, but only the more general category of
pasteurised milk.

The specific provisions laid down in Italian Law No 169 of 3 May 1989 are still fully and legitimately
applicable in their entirety, since over the years they have not been subjected to any modification or
censure at Community level.

The circular of 2 August 2000 issued by the Ministry for Manufacturing authorised, in blatant contrast
with the provisions of joint legislation for the protection of consumers’ rights, the sale in Italy of products
which, whilst also labelled as ‘fresh pasteurised milk’, not only differ in taste and quality, but also have a
different shelf life.

This initiative seems to be in blatant conflict with the aims of European legislation on the labelling of food
products, in particular the provisions of EU Directive 13/2000 (1), since it is likely to mislead consumers
and not allow them to make informed and wise choices.