WRITTEN QUESTION E-2168/03 by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Violation of safety conditions in the Olympic Stadium in Marousi, Greece.
Date: 2003-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, Olympic games, application of EU law, equal treatment, labour law, occupational accident, occupational safety, sports facilities

C 33 E/228

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

in the context of

At the same time, the investigations currently under way within Eurostat represent a response both to
Parliament’s request
the follow-up to the 2001 discharge procedure and to the
Commission’s desire to clarify the situation completely and establish that the problems identified have been
definitely addressed and that, if necessary, further action can be taken. This is not in any way to question
the competence of Eurostat staff. Moreover, the rules governing investigations offer all officials or staff
means of redress pursuant to the provisions of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.

Lastly, with regard to recent developments relating to the situation in Eurostat and the action this calls for,
the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the series of measures adopted at its meetings on
9 and 23 July 2003.

(2004/C 33 E/233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2168/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Violation of safety conditions in the Olympic Stadium in Marousi, Greece

Preparations for the 2004 Athens Olympic Games are now under way. Construction work is taking place
in Marousi, the town were the Olympic Stadium is located.

Is the Commission aware of the following serious breaches of Greek law:

(cid:1) The ignoring of safety conditions because of time pressure. We are told that, to date, 10 people have

died and many others have been seriously injured.

(cid:1) The prolongation of working hours: The law provides for a maximum seven-hour working day for
building work. In this instance, workers often work 9-10 hours per day and seven days a week
without proper overtime pay.

(cid:1) The infringement of workers’ rights: Workers were pressurised into agreeing to give up the right to

strike because of the major national importance of this edifice.

(cid:1) Lower pay than that set out in the national agreement: Many foreign workers are forced to accept

lower pay.

(cid:1) The misappropriation of pension funds: That most frequently affects foreign workers. Exploiting the
fact that those workers do not know their rights, the employers pay pension-fund contributions
covering only 7-10 working days in respect of workers who worked 26 days in a month.

(cid:1) Lack of control: Despite complaints, government controls are not properly carried out. Employers are
informed in advance of the inspection visits, and they have the opportunity to cover up most of the
infringements. Even those infringements that are proven are not punished. Because of the threat of a
possible delay that might jeopardise the success of the Olympic Games, the government appears to
ignore infringements.

What measures will the Commission take in order to put an end to these infringements relating to
working conditions and to guarantee the employees’ health and safety at work, given the fact that their
work will be intensified as the date for the 2004 Olympic Games approaches?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

The Commission has not received any complaints concerning the breaches of Greek law pointed out by
the Honourable Member, but shares her concerns over them. Thus, the Commission will invite the Greek
Authorities to submit their observations on the safety conditions in the Olympic Stadium in Marousi.

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/229

In any event, the Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that
it is up to the Member States to ensure that national legislation transposing Community Directives is
complied with and properly enforced.

If this should not be the case, the Commission will not hesitate to initiate an infringement procedure under
Article 226 of the EC Treaty against the Member State in question.

(2004/C 33 E/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2172/03

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Support for rural development

With reference to the resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 5 June 2003 on the proposal for
a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2826/
2000, and bearing in mind the opinion of the European Parliament set out in paragraph 1 thereof, can the
Commission answer the following questions:

1.

2.

Is it planning to introduce new objective criteria for rural areas?

If so, does it agree with me that, to date, little attention has been paid to a category of rural areas in
the vicinity of conurbations as a specific category?

3. Does it acknowledge the very specific problems which have to be solved in order to strike a balance
between the requirements of the urban population and the changes to the countryside required for
that purpose, such as more land for leisure activities, short-stay tourism and nature development?

4. Does it agree with me that, when new criteria are being drawn up, a specific type of rural area needs

to be developed in the vicinity of major conurbations?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2003)

The Commission has taken careful note of the Parliament resolution of 5 June 2003 on the proposal for a
Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development (1), in the
context of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform.

1. and 4.
There is no single commonly agreed and internationally recognised definition of rural areas,
given their great diversity. The Commission itself has no current plans to propose new objective criteria
for the definition of a typology of rural areas, and particularly not within the time frame of 1 January
2004 requested by the Parliament, which it considers unrealistic.

Preparation of any such typology could only be considered for the preparation of rural development policy
post-2006. However, even with this longer-term perspective, the Commission is not convinced that a
common typology defined at Community level is necessary for the implementation of Community rural
development policy, nor that a single common typology could take account of the wide diversity of rural
situations which will exist in an enlarged Union. Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May
1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (2),
it is currently the responsibility of the
Member States when preparing their rural development programmes to define what they consider to be
rural areas, within their specific national and/or regional contexts.