WRITTEN QUESTION E-2649/03 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Comparison of electricity network tariffs in the Commission's second benchmarking report.
Date: 2003-09-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: benchmarking, electrical energy, energy grid, fixing of prices, research method

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/411

This programme is designed to support projects co-produced and part-financed by at least three promoters
from at least three countries participating in the programme. The Honourable Member will find further
details at the following address: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/c2000).

(1) 2000/530/EC: Commission Decision of 27 July 2000 listing the areas of Italy eligible under Objective 2 of the
Structural Funds for the period 2000 to 2006 (notified under document number C(2000) 2327) (Only the Italian
text is authentic), OJ L 223, 4.9.2000.

(2004/C 78 E/0432)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2649/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Comparison of electricity network tariffs in the Commission’s second benchmarking report

The Commission’s ‘Second benchmarking report on the implementation of the internal electricity and gas
market’
(Brussels, 7 April 2003) shows the differing rates of progress towards liberalisation in the
individual Member States.

The report
benchmarking/doc/2/sec_2003_448_en.pdf).

is available on the following Internet site:

(http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/electricity/

Table 1 ‘Implementation of the Electricity Directive’ on page 4 of the report (column headed ‘Overall
network tariffs’) reveals that Austria, Germany and Luxembourg have above-average network tariffs.

What data and/or studies were used as the basis for ascertaining the level of network tariffs?

Who supplied the data?

On what consumption indicators and parameters is the analysis based?

How was European comparability ensured (differences in pattern of consumption, security of supply,
topology, etc.)?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2003)

The study was based on information submitted by national Ministries and electricity and gas regulatory
authorities. In some cases analysis from industry associations was used, for example the ‘Verband der
Elektrizitätswirtschaft’ (VdEW) and ‘Verband der Netzbetreiber’ (VdN) in Germany. This is explained in
more detail in Section 2 of the Annex to the document.

Standard customer types based on the price information collected by Eurostat were used, in particular:

(cid:1) large industrial user 24 Gigawatt hour (GWh) per year;

(cid:1) small commercial user 50 Megawatt hour (MWh) per year;

(cid:1) domestic user 3500 Kilowatt (KWh) per year.

The three Member States mentioned by the Honourable Member have above average network tariffs for
the customer types used.

C 78 E/412

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Generally speaking, it is considered that national regulators are best placed to make the final decision on
the appropriateness or otherwise of network access charges. It is true that topology may explain some
differences but the other factors identified (security of supply, consumption patterns) are not so different
on an individual Member State basis. As noted in the report, the lack of effective regulation in certain
Member States and an inadequate level of unbundling are also likely explanations of these differences.

(2004/C 78 E/0433)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2650/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Working Time Directive

Has the Commission carried out any studies of the impact of the Working Time Directive (93/104/

1.
EC (1)) on provision of health services?

Does the Commission recognise the difficulties caused by the Working Time Directive to health
2.
service provision? In particular, hospitals in the United Kingdom such as Barnet and Chase Farm General
Hospital have reported considerable difficulties in fixing nursing rosters that comply with the directive.
In particular, the rules on night working make it difficult for hospitals to fix family-friendly working times,
which suit nurses with children who want to be available to pick them up and drop them off at school.

Does the Commission have any plans to revise the directive to allow more flexibility for health

3.
services to deal with these problems?

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

Although Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of
the
organisation of working time lays down minimum working time requirements it allows, however, for a
considerable degree of flexibility as regards, inter alia, ‘activities involving the need for continuity of service
… particularly … services relating to the reception, treatment and/or care provided by hospitals or similar
establishments …’ (Article 17.2.1 (c) (i)).

This provision is intended to cater for the needs mentioned by the Honourable Member.

On the other hand, the Directive itself provides for a re-examination, within a period of seven years from
November 1996, of two of its provisions: the option not to apply Article 6 of the Directive where an
individual worker agrees to work more than the maximum average of 48 hours (the opt-out) and
derogations regarding the reference period. In both instances, the Directive provides that the Council shall
re-examine these provisions and decide on what action to take on the basis of a Commission proposal
accompanied by an appraisal report.

Before the end of 2003, the Commission will adopt a Communication on the revision of the Working
Time Directive.

Whether the Working Time Directive will be revised depends on the outcome of the discussions on the
consultative Communication and on the future consultation with European Social Partners.