WRITTEN QUESTION P-0307/03 by Othmar Karas (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Participation in the Tripartite Social Summit.
Date: 2003-02-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: chamber of commerce and industry, economic growth, economic reform, employment policy, professional association, social change, social dialogue (EU), social partners, tripartite conference

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/207

intolerance towards
The Commission is, nonetheless, deeply concerned at
freedom of expression and towards minorities (cid:1) in particular Chechens (cid:1) in Russia. It has raised its
concerns with the Russian authorities on numerous occasions and will continue to do so. It has also
devoted considerable technical assistance to promote media independence, for example, with the aim of
training journalists in objective reporting techniques and professional ethics. The Commission plans to
provide further support to the development of independent media in selected regions in Russia, as part of
its efforts to boost the role of Russian civil society.

increasing indications of

The Commission will continue to closely monitor the situation on freedom of expression in Russia.

(2003/C 161 E/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0307/03

by Othmar Karas (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Participation in the Tripartite Social Summit

On 26 June 2002 the Commission presented the Communication entitled ‘The European social dialogue, a
force for innovation and change’, and the proposal for a Council decision establishing a Tripartite Social
Summit for Growth and Employment (1). The Tripartite Summit is intended to replace the Standing
Committee on Employment with the stated aim of enabling the social partners to make their contribution
to the various strands of the Lisbon strategy.

How does the Commission intend to take account of the fact that the Lisbon strategy, which seeks to
integrate economic, social and environmental policy, is setting challenges which cannot necessarily be met
solely by means of the efforts of the old Val Duchesse social partners (UNICE, ETUC and CEEP)?

For what reason does the proposal establishing a Tripartite Social Summit make no provision for
participation by Eurochambres, even though on a number of occasions the European Commission has
drawn attention to the very significant role which the socio-economic partners play in the Lisbon process
and has supported the chambers in their role as managers of change?

For what reason does the proposal make no provision for participation by EuroCommerce, even though
the sector it represents is Europe’s second largest employer?

(1) COM(2002) 341 final.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

The proposal to establish a Tripartite Social Summit on a formal basis, by means of a Council decision,
was adopted by the Commission along with the Communication on European Social Dialogue as a force
for innovation and change on 26 June 2002 (1). It was in response to the ‘Val Duchesse’ interprofessional
social partners’ joint declaration to the Laeken European Council, December 2001.

The Tripartite Social Summit represents the formalisation of an existing arrangement whereby the troika,
the Commission President and a restricted delegation of interprofessional social partners meet on the eve
of the Spring European Council to discuss the social partners’ contribution to the Lisbon strategy. Such
social summits already took place prior to the Spring European Councils of Stockholm (cid:1) March 2001 and
Barcelona (cid:1) March 2002.

The Tripartite Social Summit does not replace the existing processes of tripartite concertation which
extend beyond the Val Duchesse partners, but seeks rather to draw on the discussions in the dialogues on
macroeconomic, employment, social protection, education and training issues. Furthermore, it constitutes
just one of multiple fora for the preparation of the European Council and the follow-up to the Lisbon

C 161 E/208

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Strategy, and there are many other channels by which the respective European institutions as well as
external actors and stakeholders can bring their own ideas and contributions to the process. This includes
specific and sectoral social partner organisations, other players in the economic and social fabric of
Europe, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), who all have a key role to play in the achievement
of the Lisbon Strategy.

The Commission has indeed stressed the significant contribution of all socio-economic players in the
successful implementation of the Lisbon strategy and attainment of the targets for economic and social
reform, and fully recognises the role of the Chambers in the management of change represented by
EuroChambres, and the importance of the commerce and retail sector, represented by EuroCommerce.

Participation in the Summit has been necessarily restricted firstly for the practical reason of its efficiency,
in order to ensure that the forum operates effectively as a mechanism for tripartite concertation. Secondly,
because discussions at the Tripartite Social Summit are of an interprofessional nature, it follows that it
would be inappropriate to invite the participation of selected sectoral and specific organisations.
EuroChambres is listed in the organisations consulted under the provisions of Article 138 as a ‘specific
organisation’ and EuroCommerce as a ‘sectorial organisation’. As a result,
these
organisations are taken into account through their participation in other European-level fora, in particular,
in the case of EuroCommerce, the relevant sectorial social dialogue committee. Moreover, the proposal for
a decision now contains a specific reference to the fact that the European Trade Union Confederation
the
(ETUC) and the Union of
Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe (UNICE), as
their
spokespersons for the employees and employers representatives respectively, must ensure that
contributions take into account the opinions of specific and sectorial organisations. This underlines the fact
that the challenges of the Lisbon Strategy are not expected to be met solely by the Val Duchesse partners,
but by all socio-economic partners, including EuroChambres and EuroCommerce.

the positions of

(1) COM(2002) 341 final.

(2003/C 161 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0312/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Delay by Greece in transposing directives

According to data from the ‘Internal Market Scoreboard’
the
Commission publication, there are significant delays in some countries in the European Union in the
transposition of directives on the EU’s internal market, while in some of these Member States the rate of
transposition has slowed further in recent years.

(November 2002 issue, number 11),

On page 1 of the publication, the Commission states that the transposition deficit at EU level dropped
from 21,4 % in 1992 to 2,1 % in November 2002, but that the deficit of three Member States (France,
Portugal and Greece) is more than double the European Council’s target (i.e. that by spring 2003 the deficit
should not exceed 1,5 %). The report’s figure 4 shows that Greece must transpose 86 directives in total by
next spring if it wishes to eliminate the current transposition deficit.

What will be the consequences for the countries which do not manage to achieve the target of 1,5 % by
spring 2003? What justifications have been put forward by the authorities of the countries which are
lagging behind? Has the cost to undertakings in the EU of the delay in transposing directives relating to the
EU internal market been calculated? Are there, perhaps, plans to refer to the Court of the European
Communities, during the course of 2003, those countries which are delaying in transposing the above
directives? Which countries are involved and which directives or sectors are affected?