WRITTEN QUESTION P-3448/02 by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission. Pensions and insolvency.
Date: 2002-11-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, approximation of laws, employer, financial solvency, iron and steel industry, labour law, national implementing measure, social security

8.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110 E/213

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Complaints Nos 98/4010 and 98/4826 were closed on 16 October 2002. The information provided by
the complainants was insufficient in demonstrating the disproportionate nature of the Austrian regulation.
The complainants indicated their intention to provide a scientific study. No such study was received. Given
the length of the procedure, the Commission decided to close the case. If a scientific study is provided at a
later stage, a new case can be opened then.

(2003/C 110 E/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3442/02

by Jean-Maurice Dehousse (PSE) to the Commission

(26 November 2002)

Subject: Negotiations and use of languages

The press, and specifically La Quinzaine Européenne (No 27 of 18 November (cid:1) 1 December 2002) claims
that ‘President Romano Prodi and Commissioner Günter Verheugen … have apparently given orders that
all the accession negotiations are to take place in English.’

Is this claim wholly or partially correct?

If so, what are the reasons for such ‘orders’?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2002)

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that neither the President of the Commission nor the
Member of the Commission in charge of Enlargement have ever given orders that all the accession
negotiations are to take place in English.

Accession conferences are intergovernmental conferences. As a consequence, the language regime for these
conferences is determined by the participating States and not by the Commission.

In the experience of the Commission since the beginning of the Accession Negotiations and at the different
levels, there has been no restriction of the language regime to English or indeed to another official
language of the Union and all official languages of the Union have been available for use.

(2003/C 110 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3448/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Pensions and insolvency

Could the Commission explain what has been done in the past if Member States have not complied with
Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (1)? What
does the Commission intend to do if the directive is not honoured by the UK Government in relation to
the workers at Allied Steel and Wire Ltd?

(1) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 23.

C 110 E/214

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2002)

The Commission examines the transposal of Community Directives into national law and monitors the
application of provisions adopted for the implementation of Community law. If the Commission considers
that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under Community law, it initiates proceedings under
Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

In the case of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 (1), the Commission examined and
evaluated transposal in the Member States in a report which was published in 1995 (2) and supplemented
by a further report in 1996 (3). With regard to the implementation of social security provisions in the
United Kingdom, the opinion given by the Commission in its report was that the provisions adopted by
the United Kingdom complied with the requirements of the Directive.

(1) Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating

to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, OJ L 283, 28.10.1980.

(2) COM(95) 164 final.
(3) COM(96) 696 final.

(2003/C 110 E/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3478/02

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Discrimination on the ground of nationality in Bayeux, France

A museum in Bayeux, France, charges a reduced entrance fee for families, but only if those families are
French.

Does this constitute discrimination of the ground of nationality, which is prohibited pursuant to

1.
Article 12 of the EC Treaty?

2.

If so, what will the Commission do to remedy this situation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

The Honourable Member has asked a question about the entrance fees for families to a museum in Bayeux,
which differ according to the nationality of the family.

The question does not provide sufficient information concerning the specific circumstances under which
different rules of admission to this museum are applied. However, the Commission would like to recall
that, in principle, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the freedom to provide services set out
in Article 49 of the EC Treaty also covers the freedom for recipients of services, including tourists, to go to
another Member State in order to enjoy those services under the same conditions as nationals of that
Member State. Discrimination based on nationality applying to entrance fees to museums has been
explicitly recognised by the Court as being prohibited under Articles 12 and 49 of the EC Treaty (1). The
Court has confirmed that, since visiting museums is one of the determining reasons for which tourists, as
recipients of services, decide to go to another Member State, there is a close link between the freedom of
movement which they enjoy under the EC Treaty and museum admission conditions. The discrimination
with regard to admission to museums may have an effect on the conditions under which services are
provided, including the price thereof, and may therefore influence the decision of some persons to visit the
country (1).

(1)

Judgement of 15 March 1994, Commission v Spain, C-45/93.