WRITTEN QUESTION E-3351/03 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Obstacles to the free movement of workers in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Date: 2003-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Luxembourg, exchange of information, free movement of workers, labour law, labour mobility, provision of services, transnational corporation, working conditions

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/269

The Commission supports initiatives in the cultural sector in the framework of the ‘Culture 2000’
4.
programme and in the context of the IST programme. The ‘Culture 2000’ programme has been set up to
support projects which are co-produced and co-financed by at least three operators who are nationals of at
least three countries which participate in the programme. Further information if required can be found on
the following web site: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/c2000).

The IST programme supports research in the area of Information Society Technologies and one specific
priority within this programme supports access to cultural heritage under the so-called DigiCult activity:
Digital Heritage and Cultural content. Additional information can be found on the following web site:
(http://www.cordis.lu/ist/directorate_e/digicult/index.htm).

(1) OJ L 290, 24.11.1993.

(2004/C 78 E/0269)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3351/03

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject: Obstacles to the free movement of workers in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

1.
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg provides regular information, for example to German businesses,
on the conditions which must be complied with while posting workers in Luxembourg. These conditions
are set out in communications from the Luxembourg Labour Inspectorate, and include the appointment of
an authorised representative, notification by registered mail of all forthcoming work in Luxembourg and
the disclosure of detailed information on all posted workers.

Does the Commission view this complicated list of conditions as an obstacle to the free movement of
workers in the internal market? If so, what action has it taken against the Luxembourg Government? If
not, why not?

Do the conditions of the Luxembourg Law of 20 December 2002 comply with Directive 96/71/EC (1)
2.
of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in
the framework of the provision of services?

3.
Under current legislation, businesses which are based outside Luxembourg have to submit a great
deal of information on their workers to the Luxembourg Labour Inspectorate within a short space of time.
How does the Commission view the fact that these elaborate requirements place businesses from outside
Luxembourg at a disadvantage in terms of competition policy?

(1) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Community law does not stop a Member State imposing an obligation to provide certain information on
in particular their working and
the conditions for posted workers in the Member State of posting,
employment conditions as provided for in Directive 96/71/EC, as long as this information is justified from
a worker protection perspective or by other pressing reasons of general interest and to the extent that they
guarantee the implementation of the objective pursued and do not go beyond what is required to achieve
this objective. Certain measures of this kind may even prove necessary to comply with the obligations of
Article 5 of this Directive.

C 78 E/270

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The Commission is following the implementation of Directive 96/71/EC very closely and recently finished
the final stage of a general evaluation of it. In July 2003, the Commission adopted a Communication (1)
whose main objective was to identify persistent problems in the transposition and application of this
Directive. In this context, it was found that improving the practical cooperation between the authorities
responsible for supervising working and employment conditions could not only increase compliance with
the provisions of the Directive but also render superfluous a certain number of national information and
document-keeping obligations in the host Member State. A group of government experts was therefore
created, at the Commission’s initiative. This group is currently examining these questions in more detail.

the same time,

the Commission is very concerned about

the transposition and implementation
At
problems associated with Directive 96/71/EC in the Member States,
including the Grand-Duchy of
Luxembourg, of which it has been informed. It will be paying particular attention to the requirements
mentioned by the Honourable Member and will be taking the necessary measures in its capacity as
‘Guardian of the Treaties’.

(1) COM(2003) 458 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0270)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3352/03

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject: Single Market rules

You will be familiar with the plans of the British Government to ban hunting with hounds in England and
Wales (a ban of sorts already exists in Scotland). The likely effect of such a ban would be to drive hunt
followers to visit other EU countries where fox-hunting is still legal, for example Ireland, to pursue their
sport.

Given the considerable commercial implications of country sports like fox-hunting, there appears to be a
‘prima facie’ case that a hunting ban in England and Wales would create a serious distortion of trade, both
in tourism and in the equestrian business, and thus breach the spirit if not the letter of the Single Market.

Please may I have the Commission’s views on this question?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member in his question, the Commission
does not see how any future decision by the British Government to ban hunting with hounds in England
and Wales would be incompatible with Single Market rules.

More specifically, the mere fact that this type of activity is legal in other Member States and the economic
repercussions that such a decision could have are not, as such, sufficient to identify an infringement of the
Treaty in this instance.