WRITTEN QUESTION E-2747/03 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Discrimination against Austrian building contractors in the provision of services on German building sites.
Date: 2003-09-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Court of Justice of the European Union, Germany, building industry, infringement procedure (EU), labour mobility, minimum pay, restriction on competition, services company, working conditions

C 58 E/202

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

While Member States remain fully responsible for the content of teaching and the organisation of
education systems, the Commission currently fulfils its role of encouraging and supporting European
cooperation on school education by means of two main tools.

The first of these is the Socrates Programme, and specifically the Comenius actions for cooperation in the
field of school education. These actions target all actors in the school education community, including not
only pupils and teachers, but also education authorities,
inspectors, parents’ groups, community
associations, and teacher training institutions, amongst others. The overall objectives of Comenius are to
enhance the quality and reinforce the European dimension of school education, and to promote the
learning of languages and intercultural awareness. Further information on the Comenius actions, including
details of the type of mobility activities supported, can be found on the following Commission website:
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/comenius/index_en.html).

The other principal framework in which cooperation on school education is taking place at European level
is through the ‘objectives process’ on the concrete future objectives of education and training systems (1), in
which the Commission plays a coordinating role. These objectives provide a basis for Member States to
work together at European level to contribute to the goal defined at the Lisbon European Council meeting
of March 2000, namely that of making Europe the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based
economy in the world. The Honourable Member will be interested to note that the goals of increasing
mobility and exchange and strengthening European cooperation are amongst those being addressed in this
process.

Through the Community Initiative Interreg III funding can be provided, in terms of projects and depending
on the assessment of the regions concerned of the needs, to co-operation of the public authorities in the
field of education as well as to cross-border learning of e.g.
languages. Though targeted projects can
provide only short-term funding, the outcomes of such projects may have a long-term impact providing
solutions to problems encountered.

(1) See the ‘Detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe’

adopted by the Council on 20 February 2002, document 6365/02 EDUC27.

(2004/C 58 E/218)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2747/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Subject: Discrimination against Austrian building contractors in the provision of services on German

building sites

Austrian firms and organisations representing the construction industry complain increasingly that, on the
basis of the German law on the posting of workers, the German authorities are restricting competition and
hindering the posting of workers for the provision of services on building sites in Germany by not
recognising allowances, bonuses and extra payments for posted workers from other Member States as part
of the minimum wage, as they do in the case of employees of German firms.

The situation will worsen after 1 September 2003, when a further and considerable increase in the
minimum wage took effect under the above German law, bringing it far above the Austrian collectively
agreed minimum wage (not taking into account additional allowances, bonuses and extra payments that
are required by law or under contracts).

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/203

the Commission act

Will
competition applying to building contractors from other Member States,
1 September 2003?

to ensure that Germany puts an end to this even greater restriction of
from

in particular Austria,

Is the Commission aiming for a rapid conclusion of Case C-341/02, which is of significance in establishing
case law?

Will the Commission seek to ensure that, when calculating the minimum wage, Germany also recognises
those payments that, owing to the provisions of the law or collective agreements in the Member State of
origin, are not issued on the scheduled date of payment of the minimum wage in question, but only in
December, for example (Christmas bonus)?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 2003)

The failure by the German authorities to recognise bonuses and supplements paid by employers based in
another Member State to their employees in the building sector posted to Germany (e.g. the Christmas
bonus or additional holiday allowance in Austria) when calculating such workers’ pay is currently the
subject of infringement proceedings brought by the Commission against Germany. The Commission has
referred the matter to the Court of Justice (Case No C-341/02) on the grounds that it contravenes Article 3
of Directive 96/71/EC (1) and Article 49 of the EC Treaty.

As this point is crucial to interpreting Directive 96/71/EC, the Commission hopes to see an early ruling by
the Court in case C-341/02. However, it is the Court of Justice itself and not the Commission that sets the
date for opening the oral procedure.

(1) 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, OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

(2004/C 58 E/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2787/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Foot and mouth disease

In an attempt to curb the spread of foot and mouth disease in 2001, the United Kingdom government
ordered the culling of ten million animals, 90 % of which are thought not to have been infected.

Many of the killings took place without regard to welfare considerations or legislation, with reports of
many maimed animals subsequently being buried or incinerated alive.

The widespread closure of footpaths and open countryside had a devastating effect upon the tourist
industry in many parts of the UK.

The response of EU governments to the 2001 epidemic has since been the subject of much discussion.

Has the UK government provided the Commission with any information to indicate that it will adopt a
radically different approach in the event of another outbreak, and, in particular, that it will endorse the use
of ring-fence vaccination to curb the spread of the disease and permit animal welfare considerations to be
respected?