WRITTEN QUESTION E-2326/03 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Discrimination between workers and employees as regards compensation for dismissal.
Date: 2003-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, European social policy, Greece, blue-collar worker, equal treatment, labour law, severance pay, white-collar worker

C 33 E/252

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Regarding the second question, and more specifically about the legislative steps, one should stress that the
Commission does not have the competence to take initiatives of a legislative nature in this field.

In conclusion, the Commission considers multilingual DVDs as one of several possible tools for creating an
environment in Europe which is more ‘language-friendly’, and would encourage their use as such.

(1) COM(2003) 449 final.

(2004/C 33 E/259)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2324/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject: Is the British Government justified in paying different pensions to different categories of persons

working in the British National Health Service?

The British Government rewards workers who in their National Health Service have served a minimum of
twenty years looking after patients suffering from mental illness by counting each of those years as double
for purposes of calculating pensions.

My constituent served in the mental health field from 1994 to 1999 but then transferred into the field of
general nursing (cid:1) so under these rules her 1994-1999 years would not count double.

Is this discrimination unfair and illegal, possibly bearing in mind the court case Coloroll Pension Trustees
Ltd versus Russell in which the statement was made that ‘trustees of an occupational pension fund are
bound to do everything in their power to ensure compliance with the principles of equal treatment under
Article 199 of the Treaty of Rome’?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

On the basis of
the Commission cannot establish whether there is an
infringement of Community law in the area of equal treatment between women and men. It would ask the
Honourable Member to provide more details concerning the case of the constituent in question.

the information provided,

(2004/C 33 E/260)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2326/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Discrimination between workers and employees as regards compensation for dismissal

Greek labour legislation does not consider that intellectual and manual workers merit the same degree of
protection in the event of redundancy, which is why, when workers are dismissed,
they receive
proportionally far
less compensation than employees. Trade union organisations have called for
compensation for these two categories to be standardised, not only for obvious reasons of equal treatment,
but also because the very small amount of compensation given to workers constitutes an incentive for
dismissing them.

Can the Commission provide information on arrangements in the other Member States? What measures
does it intend to take to promote the standardisation of compensation at European level?

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/253

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

In 1997 the Commission published a report on the legal situation concerning ‘Termination of employment
relationships’ in the Member States. The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s secretariat a copy of this report.

In the European Social Policy Agenda approved by the Nice European Council’s meeting in December
2000, the Commission is requested to organise an exchange of views on individual dismissal by the year
2004.

In June 2003 the Commission launched a series of studies in order to ascertain the current position in the
Member States. Once these have been finalised it is planned to publish an updated report in 2004. The
Commission would then consider what future measures need to be taken.

(2004/C 33 E/261)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2330/03

by Véronique Mathieu (EDD) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Export of bottled drinks to Germany

German wholesalers have informed French companies of their intention to delist their products as a result
of the German Government’s decision to implement the Order of January 2003 with effect from October
2003.

The German authorities have not in fact taken the logistical measures that this piece of legislation dictates,
leaving producers and distributors responsible for collecting any empty items of packaging and for
returning these to their place of origin.

This provision directly affects French drinks, and bottled natural and mineral water in particular, since as a
result of this legislation exporting companies will have to see to the return of empty bottles to France. In
practice, this creates a genuine distortion of competition. By acting in a manner that makes exportation all
but impossible, is Germany not showing protectionist concerns that run contrary to European law?

Does the Commission consider this German regulation to be compatible with European legislation on the
internal market on the one hand, and the Packaging Directive on the other?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

In its observations in Case C-309/02 the Commission expressed the view that a deposit on one-way
packaging is in principle admissible under Article 7 of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging
waste and Article 28 of the EC Treaty, provided that the change from the existing return systems to a
system based on deposits on one-way packaging is implemented without disruptions and avoids
disproportionate barriers to intra-Union trade.

Having regard to this, by letter dated 15 May 2003 the Member of the Commission responsible for the
Internal Market, Mr Bolkestein, and the Member of the Commission responsible for the Environment, Mrs.
Wallström, expressed their views to the German Minister for the Environment, Mr Trittin, that the one-way
deposit system currently applied in Germany may constitute a serious breach both of Article 28 of the EC
Treaty and of Article 7 of Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging
and packaging waste (1). Minister Trittin replied by letters dated 6 June, 7 July and 18 July 2003. In these
letters, the Minister indicates that the German Government is determined to set up a return system in
conformity with Community legislation by 1 October 2003 and that the remaining time until that date is
needed to resolve practical implementation problems.