WRITTEN QUESTION E-2342/03 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Construction workers' social security fund run by the autonomous province of Bozen (Cassa Edile Provincia Autonoma Bolzano); payments by foreign construction firms.
Date: 2003-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Italy, building industry, freedom to provide services, restriction on competition, social security legislation, social-security contribution

C 33 E/254

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

In his letter sent on 18 July to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, the Chancellor, Mr Gerhard
Schröder, also gave his personal commitment that the German Government will not tolerate any further
transitional period going beyond the deadline of 1 October 2003.

In view of the above, on 23 July 2003, President Prodi replied to Chancellor Schröder. He expressed his
continued concerns on the current application of the German mandatory deposit system. In particular, in
view of the system’s effects on Union imports, on the one hand he asked the Chancellor to consider the
possibility of suspending the deposit regime in its current form, until a nation-wide return system covering
the entire German territory is operational. On the other hand, he indicated that the Commission will have
to initiate infringement procedures against Germany if, by 1 October 2003, no return system in
compliance with Community law is set up.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2004/C 33 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2339/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Relocation of the American Tool company away from Albergaria-a-Velha

The multinational company American Tool has a factory in Albergaria-a-Velha, where it produces saws of
various types and other cutting tools. On 27 June 2003 it notified its workforce that it intends to close
down its operations in Portugal with effect from September, to which end it has already launched the
process which will result in the collective dismissal of all 74 of its employees.

In a letter to those employees the company has cited ‘reasons relating to technology and to the current
economic situation’ as grounds for closing its factory in Albergaria-a-Velha and relocating part of its
production to Denmark.

American Tool’s announcement has come as a complete surprise, since the company and the group to
which it belongs were not known to be in financial difficulty. In addition to its factory in Denmark, the
group has several plants in other EU countries, in particular Spain and Italy.

Would the Commission say whether or not the company has received EU support and, if so, how much?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2004/C 33 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2342/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Construction workers’ social security fund run by the autonomous province of Bozen (Cassa Edile

Provincia Autonoma Bolzano); payments by foreign construction firms

The Austrian firm Strabag AG has complained that Austrian construction firms which post workers to the
autonomous province of Bozen, Italy, are required to make payments to the construction workers’ social
security fund run by that province even though the Austrian firms make essentially the same payments in
Austria, in accordance with the law on construction workers’ holidays and pay and the general law on
social security.

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/255

Dual payments of this kind are demanded in particular in connection with tender procedures for public
works contracts awarded by municipalities. In addition, according to reports by Italian trade unions non-
EU citizens have been denied work permits because the Austrian construction firm which employs them
has refused to register its workers with the relevant social security fund.

Is the Commission aware of the situation outlined above and does it take the view that the
1.
duplication of essentially identical social security payments for construction workers represents a breach of
the freedom to provide services on the grounds that it leads to market distortions and distortions of
competition?

Does the Commission regard the instances of discrimination outlined above as contrary to

2.
Community law?

3.

If so, does the Commission intend to take action (this refers to both the questions above)?

Does the Commission take the view that the payments to the construction workers’ social security

4.
fund are covered by Directive 96/71/EC on the posting of workers (1)?

In its answer, will the Commission confirm the remarks it made in its answer to Written Question

5.
E-1479/98 (2)?

(1) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 41.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

The Honourable Member has raised questions relating to the freedom to provide services across national
borders and to the provisions of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (1).

1.
The Commission has no knowledge of the particular case brought up by the Honourable Member,
but it is aware of the risk of double contributions by employers when they are subject to obligations in
respect of paid leave in both the sending Member State and the host Member State.

If the system of paid leave funds exists in both the countries concerned, i.e. in the country of origin of the
undertaking and in the host country, the question of the equivalence of the two Member States’ schemes
must be decided. To address the problems involved in comparing these schemes, the paid leave funds in
several Member States have set up a system of cooperation to ensure mutual recognition of paid leave
schemes and to avoid employers being faced with having to pay double contributions when they post
workers.

The Commission is of the opinion that a double burden on employers in this context could
2.
constitute a restriction to the exercise of the freedom to provide services and is not in keeping with the
spirit or letter of Directive 96/71/EC.

The Commission will examine all of the cases brought to its attention and will take all measures
3.
necessary to ensure respect for the EC Treaty and correct implementation of Directive 96/71/EC. It will
also encourage all initiatives taken by paid leave funds as referred to in point 1.

4.
Directive 96/71/EC obliges the Member States to ensure that undertakings posting workers on their
territory guarantee these workers the conditions of employment listed in Article 3 that are in force in the
host country, including the minimum length of paid annual leave. When implementing this obligation, the
Member States must abide by the provisions of the Directive as well as Articles 49 et seq. of the EC Treaty.

The Commission confirms its answer to Written Question E-1479/98 by Mrs R. Oomen-Ruijten and

5.
others (2).

(1) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.
(2) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999.