WRITTEN QUESTION E-3161/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. International companies such as McDonald's which can ignore the European social model, national rules and the green paper on social responsibility.
Date: 2002-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, catering industry, citizens' Europe, competence of the Member States, labour law, labour relations, multinational enterprise

C 222 E/50

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Capital cities may access Community Funds and in particular the Structural Funds via national programmes
(Objective 3), and in some
(Objectives 1 and 2,
Community Initiatives Urban II and Interreg III).

and local programmes

cases via

regional

Given the above and the fact that the system for implementing the Funds is decentralised, the Commission
does not have information on capital cities’ comparative use of the Funds.

(2003/C 222 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3161/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 November 2002)

Subject: International companies such as McDonald’s which can ignore the European social model, national

rules and the green paper on social responsibility

Is the Commission aware that the American fast-food chain McDonald’s, whose business has grown
1.
spectacularly in Europe and which has recruited many young employees,
is threatening branches in
Germany with closure if the employees set up a works council, and that in the United Kingdom it does not
trade union members, does not conclude any collective
permit
agreements on terms of employment, and pays lower than standard wage rates?

the recruitment or promotion of

2.
Is the Commission aware that the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the
unions affiliated to it believe that in many cases these problems exceed the capacity of the individual EU
Member States to intervene effectively and that it is therefore highly desirable that action should now be
taken at European level against these practices which conflict with what is generally accepted as the
European social model?

3. Will the Commission, while acknowledging the powers of national authorities and the application of
national legislation, take the initiative to coordinate at European level measures to reprimand this large
business and any other international violators of national rules?

4. What will the Commission do to combat the abuse of internal borders and the undermining of the
relationship between employers and employees which is customary in Europe and to eliminate the
competitive advantages which these abuses confer in comparison with businesses which comply with the
law and with collective agreements on terms of employment?

In the light of

5.
the green paper on Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social
Responsibility (1), what possible penalties could be imposed on businesses which permanently seek to
disregard recommendations relating to the recruitment and retention of skilled workers, lifelong learning,
improving the position of employees, better information throughout the company, a better balance
between work, family life and leisure, greater work force diversity, equal pay and career prospects for
women, profit-sharing and share ownership schemes, and concern for employability and job security?

Source: Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant, 8 October 2002.

(1) COM(2001) 366 final of 18 July 2001.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2003)

The Honourable Member’s allegations about the conduct of the company in question with regard to pay,
the right of association and freedom of collective bargaining do not come within the scope of any
Community legislation.
Indeed, the EC Treaty rules out any action by the Community to establish
minimum requirements in these areas on the basis of Article 137 (see Article 137(6) of the EC Treaty).
With this in mind, and in the absence of any link between the facts described and Community law, the
Commission does not have the authority to intervene.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/51

At all events, it is always the responsibility of the national authorities to investigate such behaviour, if it
emerges that there has been a violation of one or more Community directives laying down minimum
requirements in the field of industrial relations, and to enforce the rights in question where necessary.

The strategy to promote Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the Union, which was proposed by the
Commission in its Green Paper and in the subsequent Communication (1), does not make provision for
sanctions mechanisms, as it defines CSR as company behaviour which goes beyond legal requirements.
However, the Commission has pointed out that the legal requirements laid down in legislation must be
respected and enforced.

(1) COM(2002) 347 final.

(2003/C 222 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3200/02

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) and Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Vigilance concerning vaccines

(8 November 2002)

Although vaccines fall within the category of medical preparations and a growing number of studies show
to
that
pharmacovigilance, which is compulsory in order to detect any side-effects of medicines.

there is no vigilance concerning vaccines equivalent

they have many undesirable effects,

However, Decision 2119/98/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, whose purpose ‘is to set
up a network at Community level to promote cooperation and coordination between the Member States,
with the assistance of the Commission, with a view to improving the prevention and control, in the
Community, of categories of communicable diseases,
including diseases preventable by vaccination’,
already forms part of a policy of Community vigilance with regard to vaccines.

the specific research,

Moreover,
technological development and demonstration programme to be
implemented through direct measures by the Joint Research Centre for the period 2002-2006 also
provides for specific research activities focusing on vaccine safety.

Does the Commission not therefore feel that a system of vigilance concerning vaccines should be set up as
soon as possible at European level, in line with the provisions of Decision 2119/98/EC?

(1) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

The Commission is working closely with the Member States, under Decision No 2119/98/EC (1),
to strengthen the surveillance of communicable diseases including the major vaccine preventable diseases.
All the major vaccine preventable diseases are included in the list of communicable diseases to be
progressively covered by the Community network (Commission Decision 2000/96/EC (2)) and a standard-
ised case definition for reporting is defined (Commission Decision 2002/253/EC (3)).

An early warning and rapid response system is in place and it will ensure an appropriate public health
response in case of notification of new events caused by major vaccine preventable diseases (Commission
Decision 2000/57/EC (4)),
infections caused by Haemophilus influenzae type b,
influenza, measles, mumps, pertussis, poliomyelitis, rubella, hepatitis A and B, meningococcal disease, and
pneumococcal infections.

including: diphtheria,