WRITTEN QUESTION E-3529/02 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Statutory regulation of holiday pay.
Date: 2002-12-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, application of EU law, employment policy, labour law, paid leave, working time

C 137 E/222

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

12.6.2003

The Commission has set out its policy in its ‘Communication concerning language use in the information
of consumers in the Community’ of 10 November 1993 (3). In this Communication the Commission
presented the acquis communautaire to that date making statements on the use of language in respect of
the consumer. Community law varies considerably as to the degree it regulates the use of language and the
margin of appreciation for the Member States to establish national rules. Labelling rules are, in particular,
strict where a potentially dangerous product is placed on the market. For example, Articles 56 and 63 of
Directive 2001/83/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code
relating to medicinal products for human use (4) or Article 5 of Directive 2001/37/EC of the Parliament
and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (5)
contain such language provisions. Outside specialised fields that require a high degree of harmonisation,
the Commission in its Communication (3) COM(93) 456 final.
‘considers rules concerning languages
naturally fall within the competence of Member States’ (paragraph 2) and established some objectives to
encourage multilingual information for the consumer and to guarantee the freedom of the Member States
in language matters (paragraph 43).

Following the judgement of the Court of Justice in case C-369/89, the Commission has further published
an ‘Interpretative Commission Communication concerning the use of languages in the marketing of
foodstuffs in the light of the judgement in the Peeters case’ (6) where it expressed its belief that in the
labelling of foodstuffs sold to the ultimate consumer, the use of terms in a language other than the official
language(s) of the Member State where the product is marketed should, in practice, remain the exception
(paragraph 44).

(1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.
(2) OJ L 151, 23.6.1993.
(3) COM(93) 456 final.
(4) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.
(5) OJ L 194, 18.7.2001.
(6) COM(93) 532 final.

(2003/C 137 E/250)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3529/02

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Statutory regulation of holiday pay

In Belgium an employee who did not work in Belgium in 2001, for example, is not entitled to any paid
holidays in 2002. Consequently, a person who enters the labour market in Belgium on 1 January 2002 is
not entitled to any paid holidays that year. This applies not only to Belgian nationals but also to people
from other Member States wishing to exercise their right to free movement of workers within the
Community (Article 39 of the Treaty), with the difference, however, that it applies irrespective of their
employment record. This amounts to discrimination on the basis of nationality. The Commission itself has
drawn attention to this situation (1), but it is unclear what action it has taken as the regulations still apply
today. The relevant statutory provisions are the Royal Decree of 30 March 1967 establishing the general
arrangements for implementing the laws relating to workers’ annual holidays and the Royal Decree of
28 June 1971 adapting and coordinating the statutory provisions on workers’ annual holidays.

Is this provision in breach of European regulations and, more specifically, Article 39 of the Treaty

1.
and Article 7 of the Working Time Directive (93/104/EC (2))?

2. What action has the Commission taken since noting this state of affairs (1) COM(2000) 787?

Can the Commission indicate what the position is in the EU with regard to transferring accrued

3.
entitlements to holiday pay?

Does the Commission intend to bring forward proposals to improve coordination of the various

4.
statutory provisions in the Member States?

(1) COM(2000) 787.
(2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.

12.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137 E/223

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2003)

Article 7 of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of
the
organisation of working time (1) stipulates that every worker is entitled to paid annual leave of at least four
weeks in accordance with the conditions for entitlement to, and granting of, such leave laid down by
national legislation and/or practice.

In the Commission’s view, the Belgian provisions you mentioned are in compliance with Article 7 of the
Directive, since the latter explicitly refers to the conditions for entitlement to, and granting of, such leave
laid down by national legislation and/or practice.

According to the Court of Justice’s judgment of 26 November 2001 in Case C-173/99 (2), legislation of a
Member State which imposes a precondition for entitlement to paid annual leave that has the effect of
preventing certain workers from acquiring any such entitlement not only negates an individual right
expressly granted by Directive 93/104/EC but is also contrary to its objective (point 48 of the judgment).
However, the Belgian legislation does not make entitlement conditional on a minimum period of work but
merely defers such entitlement to the following calendar year. In the Commission’s opinion, this is covered
by the final part of Article 7(1).

As regards the transfer of accrued entitlement to holiday pay, there is no Community legislation on this
subject and the Commission has no plans at present to put forward proposals in this area.

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
(2)

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 June 2001. The Queen v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry,
ex parte Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematographic and Theatre Union (BECTU). Reference for a preliminary
ruling: High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) (cid:1) United Kingdom,
European Court Reports 2001, p. I-04881.

(2003/C 137 E/251)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3536/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Subject: STAR 21 Review

How does the Commission intend to implement the recommendations made in its Strategic Aerospace
Review (STAR 21)?

What effects will these recommendations have on the production and sale of weaponry for military use, in
the Commission’s view?

How does the Commission propose to ensure that promotion of the European aerospace industry does not
lead to an increase in the flow of weapons and related equipment out of factories and into areas of
conflict?

(2003/C 137 E/252)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3537/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Subject: STAR 21 Review

Will the Commission please explain why its STAR 21 (Strategic Aerospace Review) ignores the divide
between civil and military equipment?