WRITTEN QUESTION E-2466/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Systematic provision of information to police forces, businessmen and holidaymakers with a view to ensuring that foreign tourists are not punished when they unwittingly break the law.
Date: 2003-07-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competence of the Member States, dissemination of information, equality before the law, foreign tourism, offence, police checks, tourism policy, traffic regulations

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/115

It could be said that this grant system is purely and simply part of the black economy, since the ‘grant
recipients’ are required to work without any social security cover for 36 hours a week (the same hours,
under the national collective labour contract, as Chamber of Commerce employees) and to perform exactly
the same tasks as regular employees and auxiliary staff (to the exclusion of any research and study
activities).

This year, the ten ‘grant recipients’ taken on referred this matter, by recorded delivery letter of 5 April
2003, to the Salerno Labour Inspectorate, which is an integral part of the Italian Ministry of Labour and
Social Policies. Three months down the line, this body has still to report the results of any enquiries it has
conducted in relation to this year or previous years.

the EC Treaty provides that

Article 136 of
‘The Community and Member States, having in mind
fundamental social rights such as those set out in the European Social Charter signed in Turin on
18 October 1961 and in the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, shall
have as their objectives the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions, so as to
make possible their harmonisation while the improvement is being maintained, proper social dialogue …’.

Article 211 of the EC Treaty provides that ‘… the Commission shall ensure that the provisions of this
Treaty … are applied’.

What initiatives will the Commission pursue to induce Italy to take steps to detect and penalise any abuses
that may have been committed by the Salerno Chamber of Commerce?

What other initiatives will it take to guarantee the impartiality of the bodies appointed to police abuses of
labour law in cases involving the public authorities themselves?

Finally, what initiatives will the Commission take to verify that it is not standard procedure for the public
authorities to use ‘educational grants’ to circumvent legislation on fixed-term contracts?

(1) OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

The Honourable Member refers to Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework
agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (1).

This Directive lays down a principle of non-discrimination as regards employment conditions for fixed-
term workers compared to permanent workers. The Directive does not define a ‘worker’, but refers to the
definition made by law, collective agreements or practice in each Member State. Furthermore, the Member
State can provide that the Directive should not apply to initial vocational training relationships and
apprenticeship schemes or employment contracts and relationships which have been concluded within the
framework of a specific public or publicly-supported training,
integration and vocational retraining
programme.

If grant recipients believe they should be considered as workers according to Italian law or practice, they
must therefore bring the matter before a competent Italian authority.

(1) OJ L 175, 10.7.1999.

(2004/C 78 E/0117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2466/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject: Systematic provision of information to police forces, businessmen and holidaymakers with a view
to ensuring that foreign tourists are not punished when they unwittingly break the law

1.
I understand that in early July a holidaymaker from the Netherlands visiting the Greek island of Crete
(Chersonissos) hired a scooter which was not supplied with a helmet and then had an EUR 78 fine

C 78 E/116

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

imposed on him without warning by the police in another town (Neopali). I have previously raised related
matters in my Written Questions E-3455/00 (1) and E-0958/01 (2). Is the Commission aware that with
alarming frequency residents of an EU Member State on holiday in another Member State are surprised to
be caught by the police, the traffic police, ticket inspectors, lifeguards, customs officers, the fire brigade or
other officials in the act of breaking the law, even though they have done so unwittingly and could not
reasonably have avoided committing the offence in question.

2.
Does the Commission see a role for the EU in protecting as far as possible nationals of the Member
States against what they repeatedly experience as incomprehension, unfairness, arbitrary behaviour or
legalised extortion in other Member States?

3.
Can the Commission help to bring about a greater degree of uniformity in the behaviour which
tourists can reasonably expect from the police and other forces of law and order in the regions which they
frequent?

4.
Can the Commission help to ensure that adequate information is available concerning blatant
departures from generally accepted rules which unexpectedly turn people into criminals and the ways in
which businessmen in the tourist sector can systematically help to ensure that such situations do not arise?

5.
Is the Commission developing practical measures with that aim in view, not least in connection with
the EU’s much-touted, but thus far largely theoretical, role in removing obstacles to cross-border tourism?

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 174.
(2) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 161.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

1.
It is a matter for Member States to decide upon their domestic legislation, except in areas where it
has been considered appropriate to harmonise or approximate legislation. Article 33 of the Treaty on
European Union provides that European legislation shall not affect the responsibilities incumbent on
Member States with regard to the maintenance of
It remains the responsibility of
holidaymakers to acquaint themselves with the relevant laws of any other Member State they may wish to
visit. Ignorance of the law is not a defence available to nationals of a Member State. The Commission does
not believe that foreign visitors should be treated differently from nationals.

law and order.

The Commission has no reason to believe that either the law at issue here or the manner in which it is
enforced is discriminatory against non-nationals.

The question does not disclose evidence of ‘incomprehension, unfairness, arbitrary behaviour’. In any
2.
event, legislating for this type of conduct does not fall within the competence of the Union and there is no
legal basis to act against such conduct in the general sense. Any instances of ‘legalised extortion’ which are
the result of discrimination against nationals of another Member State would be contrary to Article 12 of
the EC Treaty. It should also be noted that the Commission plans to submit a proposal for a Framework
Decision on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the
Union in the autumn 2003. This should ensure that there are common minimum standards as far as trial
rights in criminal proceedings are concerned.

The Union has no power to legislate at the European level for ‘uniformity’ in the conduct of police

3.
and other forces of law and order.

4.
The Commission has no knowledge of ‘blatant departures from generally accepted rules which
unexpectedly turn people into criminals’ and in any event, has no jurisdiction to act in such a case for the
reasons set out above.

The Commission will shortly be recommending a set of procedural safeguards designed to ensure that
foreign suspects and defendants are treated fairly in criminal proceedings throughout the Union.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/117

The Commission believes that the issue raised by the Honourable Member is no obstacle which would
have a measurable impact on European tourism in general, even if in individual cases,
it can cause
problems. But it also agrees that visitors should be provided with sufficient local information to make their
stay a pleasant one. However, due to the already mentioned lack of specific Community competence in the
sphere of tourism, it is largely up to national, regional and local authorities, and to the private sector and
civil society bodies, to make the relevant information available to tourists.

5.
Regarding practical Community measures specifically designed for favouring European tourism, the
Commission has outlined them in its Communication Working together for the future of European
tourism (1). Furthermore, comprehensive information to this end is publicly available at the Commission’s
special tourism website http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/services/tourism/index_en.htm.

(1) COM(2001) 665 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2481/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Transferable fishing quotas

(24 July 2003)

When appearing before Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries on 10 June 2003, Commissioner Fischler
announced that the Commission would put forward a working paper on transferable fishing quotas in
Community waters before the end of the year.

Given this document’s importance for the future CFP:

1. Can the Commission provide more information on the matter?

2. Can it now give more precise dates for when the document might be available?

3.

Is the Commission considering its possible application in all the various fisheries, zones and fleets?

4. Will the Commission act on the suggestion made in Parliament and start introducing transferable

quotas by means of experimental or pilot projects?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2003)

In its Communication on reform of the CFP (1) the Commission states its intention of examining the
economic aspects of fisheries management in the Union and to that end organising workshops with the
stakeholders in economic management and presenting a reflection paper looking in particular at the
question of individual and transferable fishing rights.

At the moment the Commission is engaged in consulting all stakeholders so that they can make their
experiences known to it. Widely varying management systems have been tried in Europe and elsewhere in
the world, individual fisheries are very diverse in nature and the constraints under which they operate are
not often comparable. Since the Commission wants discussion to be as wide, full and open as possible and
this year’s calendar is already very heavily laden it appears necessary to defer the report to 2004.

The Commission’s primary wish for its report on the economics of fishery management is that it should
contribute to the stakeholders’ reflections. It has no intention of advocating the use of any particular
management system. Its responsibility is to propose annual catch rates (total allowable catches) and quotas
but it has no authority to allocate these within countries or regions or to decide that experimental or pilot
projects for transferable quota systems should be run within Member States.

(1) Commission Communication to the Council and Parliament on reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (‘Roadmap’)

COM(2002) 181 final.