WRITTEN QUESTION E-3580/03 by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission. EU working time legislation.
Date: 2003-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, administration of the Institutions, arrangement of working time, derogation from EU law, economic consequence, invitation to tender, judgment of the Court (EU), legal working time, physician

C 78 E/596

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

One step in this direction would be the introduction of a Europe-wide identity document for the disabled
guaranteeing facilities and privileges regardless of nationality and making them readily available to all
disabled persons. In my Written Question E-2173/02 (1) of 18 July 2002 I already pointed to the need for
such an identity document for the disabled.

Since each Member State is free to determine the scope of the facilities and privileges accorded to the
disabled, a uniform EU identity document for the disabled is needed. It should guarantee each disabled
citizen of the Union the same rights in each country.

Will the Commission answer the following questions:

(cid:1) Has the EU already developed initial ideas about the introduction of an identity document for the

disabled which is valid throughout the EU?

(cid:1) If so, will it say what these ideas are?

(cid:1) If not, does it not agree that an identity document for the disabled which is valid throughout the EU

should be introduced?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 257.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his earlier written question
E-2173/02 (1). As is clearly stated therein, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the decision
concerning the definition of disability and thus eligibility for disability cards is taken at national level.

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 257.

(2004/C 78 E/0630)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3580/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: EU working time legislation

Further to its 15 October answer to my written question E-2611/03 (1), when did the Commission issue
the two invitations to tender for a study on the consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice in
the SIMAP case (2)?

Why did it wait almost two and a half years before issuing the invitation to tender?

Does it believe such a completed study would have been useful for the preparation of its Communication
on working time which is due by the end of 2003, and which it has already indicated will address the
implications of the SIMAP judgment?

What views were presented by the Irish Government’s representative at the meeting of national experts
referred to by the Commission in its answer to written question E-0535/03 (3)?

Have any approaches been made to the Commission by the Irish Government requesting a possible Irish
‘derogation’ from the scope of Directive 2000/34/EC (4) in relation to junior doctors? What is or would be
the Commission’s response to such a request?

(1) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 187.
(2)

Judgment of the Court of 3 October in case C-303/98, Sindicato de Medicos de Asistencia Publica (SIMAP) and
Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana.

(3) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 199.
(4) OJ L 195, 1.8.2000, p. 41.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/597

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

As regards the invitations to tender for a study on the consequences of the judgment of the Court of
Justice in the SIMAP Case (1), the Commission dispatched the letters of invitation to tender on 11 April
2002 and 18 December 2002.

The study was launched with a view to preparing for the communication on working time.

As for the Commission’s meeting with national experts on working time, the Commission would refer to
its answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-2611/03 (2). It must point out, however, that
the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss the transposition of Directive 2000/34/EC (3), but the
Commission’s future communication on working time. At all events, no Member State reported difficulties
with the transposition of that Directive.

Lastly, the Commission wishes to make it clear that no derogations can be made from the scope of
Directive 2000/34/EC and none of the Member Sates has submitted a request for derogation.

(1)

Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2000 in Case C-303/98, Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública (SIMAP)
and Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana.

(2) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 187.
(3) Directive 2000/34/CE of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 amending Council Directive 93/104/
CE concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that
Directive, OJ L 195, 1.8.2000.

(2004/C 78 E/0631)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3582/03

by Yasmine Boudjenah (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Role of multinational corporations in conflict regions in Africa

The UN Security Council’s endorsement of the report by the UN Expert Panel on the Illegal Exploitation of
Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire)
and the publication in the French press of extracts from this report underline the urgent need for greater
transparency when investigating the links between the responsibilities of multinational corporations and
the pursuit of war in certain countries, particularly on the African continent.

In the light of the European Parliament’s adoption of the Howitt report in 1998 on EU standards for
towards a European Code of Conduct and
European enterprises operating in developing countries:
monitoring platform (A4-0508/1998) and the repeated calls for the Commission to impose strict controls
on multinational corporations obliging them to treat human beings with respect, to maintain human
dignity and proper working conditions and to respect democratic principles and the values of peace, can
the Commission state what progress has been made in this area?

More specifically, has the Commission had access to the full text of the UN report? If so, can it state
whether or not European private or public companies are implicated in illegal activity in relation to the
conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? If so, will action be taken (setting up a committee of
inquiry, sanctions) to ensure that no European subsidy is linked to this conflict?