WRITTEN QUESTION P-2237/02 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Implementation in Greece of Directive 1999/70/EC.
Date: 2002-07-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, application of EU law, job security, labour law, national implementing measure, temporary employment, work contract

C 301 E/266

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 August 2002)

Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or
parts of undertakings or businesses (1) applies, according to Article 1, paragraph 1, point a) thereof, to any
transfer of an undertaking, business, or part of an undertaking or business to another employer as a result
of a legal transfer or merger. The Court of Justice held, in case C-234/98 (2), that the Directive can apply to
a transfer between two companies in the same group.

The Directive applies where there is a transfer of an economic entity which retains its identity, meaning an
organised grouping of resources which has the objective of pursuing an economic activity, whether or not
that activity is central or ancillary. The Commission is not in a position to assess whether the Directive is
applicable in this case.

Finally, Article 3, paragraph 4 point a), states that, unless Member States provide otherwise,
the
safeguarding of employees’ rights, as defined in paragraph 1 and 3 of the same Article, does not apply in
relation to employees’ rights to old-age, invalidity or survivors’ benefits under supplementary company or
inter-company pension schemes outside the statutory social security schemes in Member States (3).

As far as the Commission is aware, the Directive has been correctly transposed in the United Kingdom. In
the first instance, therefore, it is the responsibility of the national courts to resolve any issues arising from
or relating to incorrect implementation by the national authorities.

(1) OJ L 82, 22.3.2001.
(2) Case C-234/98, G. C. Allen and Others v. Amalgamated Construction Co. Ltd, ECR 1999, p. I-8643.
(3) Article 3, paragraph 1, lays down that the transferor’s rights and obligations arising from a contract of employment
or from an employment relationship existing on the date of a transfer shall, by reason of such transfer, be
transferred to the transferee. According to paragraph 3 of the same Article, the transferee shall continue to observe
the terms and conditions agreed in any collective agreement on the same terms applicable to the transferor under
the agreement.

(2002/C 301 E/285)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2237/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Implementation in Greece of Directive 1999/70/EC

(15 July 2002)

Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 concerning fixed-term work requires the Member States
to ‘bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this
Directive by 10 July 2001’. The Greek Government obtained a one-year extension to this deadline without
establishing that
it did not consult
management and labour. Moreover, although the latest deadline has now expired, the Greek Government
has still not adopted the requisite laws, regulations and administrative provisions.

there were ‘special difficulties’ since, on its own responsibility,

Furthermore, according to a responsible Minister,
illegally, to
exempt from the directive employees under contract in the public sector, legal persons subject to public
law, local government bodies and some legal persons subject to private law, such as Olympic Airways.

it is the Greek Government’s intention,

Given that the Member State in question seems to have opted for a policy of obstruction and distortion of
the directive to the detriment of workers’ rights, will the Commission immediately initiate preliminary
proceedings against the Greek Government in the Court of Justice?

(1) OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/267

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 August 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to written questions E- 1505/02 by
Mr Xarchakos (1) and E-1495/02 by Mr Hatzidakis (2).

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 220.
(2) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 216.

(2002/C 301 E/286)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2295/02

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Pharmaceutical products for human use

In its proposal (1) to amend the Community Code relating to pharmaceutical products for human use
(amending Directive 2001/83/EC (2)), the European Commission has put forward a harmonised 10-11 year
data exclusivity period during which all applications for an essential similar generic medicine are
prohibited.

Could the European Commission please indicate:

1. What economic criteria and analysis did the European Commission use in selecting a 10-year period

rather than a 6-year period as applied in Ireland and six other EU Member States?

2. Did the European Commission carry out any assessment of the impact on health care budgets caused

by the increase in this period of protection for:

(a) EU Member States currently applying a 6-year data exclusivity period and

(b) applicant countries, most of who have indicated their preference for a 6-year data exclusivity

period?

(1) COM(2001) 404 final, OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002, p. 216.
(2) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.

Aswer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 August 2002)

In preparation of its proposal to amend the pharmaceutical legislation (1), the Commission initiated an
evaluation of the authorisation procedures by external experts. The final report by CMS Cameron McKenna
and Andersen Consulting of November 2000 (2) analyses in detail the issue of data protection, taking into
account economic criteria and impact on health care budgets.

on behalf of the Commission, a further report on ‘Global competitiveness in pharmaceuticals (cid:1) A
European perspective’ was prepared by Gambardella, Orsenigo and Pammolli (3) and presented in
November 2000. This report, too, addresses the deficiencies in the current legislation’s lack of sufficient
protection of intellectual property rights.

In particular the ‘McKenna’ report revealed a very strong support for harmonising the periods of data
protection of currently 10 years for centrally and at least 6 years for nationally authorised medicines (see
section 5.3.9.2 of the report).

Regarding the precise level of data protection, 79 % of all respondents were in favour of a harmonised
period of 10 years. This included innovative industry, regulators and other respondents, but also generic
companies, of which 56 % supported a harmonised protection of 10 years (section 5.3.9.2 of the report).