WRITTEN QUESTION P-2138/03 by Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Breach of the directive on working time (directive dealing with a number of aspects of the organisation of working time) by several Member States.
Date: 2003-06-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, application of EU law, arrangement of working time, case-law (EU), infringement procedure (EU), labour law, physician, working time

C 33 E/224

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2003)

On 4 November 2002, the Member of the Commission responsible for the Internal Market informed the
Parliament’s Legal Affairs and Internal Market Committee that book price fixing systems existed in various
Member States in the form of legislation or professional agreements. He explained that these systems had
not caused any problems to date with regard to Court of Justice case law in this field.

The Member of the Commission also stated that,
in keeping with its commitments to clarify and
modernise European legislation, the Commission felt that harmonisation of these national systems would
not bring sufficient benefits to justify changes to the legal framework developed by the Court of Justice.

No new information has been received since then to justify changing this analysis.

In addition, as the Member of the Commission pointed out, and following a detailed examination of the
Parliament’s legislative proposal of 16 May 2002, the Commission considers that the definition of the key
concept of ‘circumvention’ established by this proposal is too broad and is likely to significantly impede
the free movement of books between Member States, particularly those involved in e-commerce. A broad
definition of ‘circumvention’ would also be incompatible with the obligation to interpret restrictively all
exceptions to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty.

The Commission also notes that this approach has been adopted by all the national book price fixing
systems, including the German system adopted on 2 September 2002.

It should also be stressed that the proposal for a Commission Regulation on sales promotions implicitly
authorises the prices of certain products to be fixed nationally, insofar as provision is made, in this respect,
for a specific exception to the ban in principle on Member States limiting the value of sales promotions: by
virtue of this exception, the Member States are therefore authorised to specifically limit the value of
discounts (and not of other promotions) for fixed-price products.

In view of the above, the Commission has decided, for the moment, not to back the idea of an ad hoc
legislative proposal such as that proposed by the Parliament.

At any rate, it is continuing to monitor the implementation of national book price fixing systems and their
compliance with Community law. If ever this were to prove necessary, it would consider all practical
initiatives.

(2004/C 33 E/229)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2138/03

by Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Subject: Breach of the directive on working time (directive dealing with a number of aspects of the

organisation of working time) by several Member States

Not least through the proceedings of the working group of national experts, the Commission is no doubt
aware that a number of Member States have failed to comply with the judgment handed down by the
Court of Justice of the European Communities in the SIMAP case (C-303/98).

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1.

Is it true that the above-mentioned working group of national experts is considering means of
restricting or nullifying the implications of the SIMAP judgment?

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/225

2.

In its answer to an earlier question (P-3515/02 (1)), the Commission made clear that the Member States
must take the measures required to implement the directive and comply with the Court of Justice
judgment. However, the answer also reveals that the Netherlands, where waiting periods are still
regarded as rest periods and workers in some sectors work considerably more than 48 hours per
week, has failed to comply with the judgment. Accordingly, the Netherlands has been in breach of EU
law for almost 1000 days since 3 October 2000. Is it therefore not high time that infringement
proceedings were started?

3. Would it be right to assume that the continuing failure, after almost three years, to complete the
impact study or the fact that the directive is to be assessed in late 2003 will have no bearing on the
decision to launch infringement proceedings?

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 217.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The Commission organised a meeting with Member States’ representatives on 28 April 2003 regarding the
future communication from the Commission concerning Directive 93/104/EC (1). The agenda for this
meeting included an item on the follow-up to the SIMAP judgment (2). At this meeting, the Commission
informed the Member States’ representatives of the latest developments and held a debate with a view to
ascertaining their opinions so that these could be taken into account in the communication on working
time.

In addition, the Commission is currently analysing Member States’ legislation in the light of the SIMAP
judgment, with a view to proposing the launch of the procedure provided for in Article 226 of the EC
Treaty in all cases where this is justified.

(1) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time,

(2)

OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2000, Case C-303/98, Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública (Simap) v.
Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana, European Court Reports 2000, p. I-07963.

(2004/C 33 E/230)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2144/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject: Quality standards for imports

In the European Union, quality standards in agriculture are set at a very high level. That is very much to be
welcomed.

In the case of imports of agricultural products from non-EU countries, however, are the same standards
genuinely complied with?

Is this regulated by the EU?

Only clear harmonisation of provisions on imports, too, can protect European consumers and ensure that
European farmers are competitive.

Would the Commission comment on this?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

The Commission insists that food should be safe, irrespective of its origin. Therefore, as a general principle,
imports of agricultural products must offer equivalent levels of safety as products of Community origin.