WRITTEN QUESTION E-1061/00 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission. Discrimination by a Member State between its own citizens.
28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/203 Does the Commission believe that this clause contravenes single market legislation? In the Commissionís view, does this clause contravene the spirit of the EUís single market legislation and/or the single market principle? Is Clause 19 likely to contravene the e-commerce directive (assuming it is enacted in accordance with the Councilís recent agreement on a common position)? Does the approach of the UK Government undermine the home country/country of origin control principle of the single market? If it is the view of the Commission that Clause 19 breaches any EU laws or principles, what action does it intend to take against the UK Government? Has the Commission received any complaints from the public concerning Clause 19? Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (19 May 2000) The Commission is aware of the draft financial services and markets bill (FSMB). The Commission is concerned to ensure that Clause 19, once it comes into force, is consistent with internal market principles and in particular, with the provisions in the draft Directive on a legal framework for e-commerce (1). The Commission and the British authorities are in contact to this effect. The Commission has not received any official complaints concerning clause 19, which is not yet in force. (1) COM(98) 586 final. (2000/C 374 E/240) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1061/00 by Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR) to the Commission (4 April 2000) Subject: Discrimination by a Member State between its own citizens With reference to my priority written question to the Commission (P-0555/00) (1), the Commission did not, in my view, answer the question. The Danish Government has put forward a draft law to amend Danish legislation on holidays. The problem is that this law discriminates between workers with a collective agreement and those without an agreement. My question was whether, in the Commissionís view, it is consistent with the Treaties for a Member State to discriminate between its own citizens ü i. e. employees covered by a collective agreement as opposed to employees without a collective agreement ü so that those who are covered by a collective agreement are able to carry over daysí holiday to a new holiday year, while those not covered by an agreement are not offered that possibility? Is it, in the Commissionís view, reasonable for a Member State to discriminate between its own citizens on the basis of whether they are covered by a collective agreement or not? (1) OJ C 303 E, 24. 10. 2000. C 374 E/204 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (15 May 2000) As the Commission indicated in its reply to the Honourable Memberís Written Question P-0555/00 (1), the issue raised by the Honourable Member is the responsibility of the Danish authorities provided that Danish legislation, if amended, guarantees that Article 7 of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (2) is respected. legislation in Member States often From a general point of view, differentiates between the rights and obligations of individuals on various grounds. However, provided that the differentiation is not made on grounds which violate Community law, the reasonableness of such provisions must be assessed at national level. it may, however, be stated that (1) OJ C 303 E, 24. 10. 2000. (2) OJ L 307, 13. 12. 1993. (2000/C 374 E/241) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1063/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (4 April 2000) Subject: The Id al-Kabir festival ü violation of EU directives and French legislation The Commission is doubtless aware of the fact that the religious slaughter of sheep at the annual Id al-Kabir festival near Paris is brutal and illegal. It is a blatant violation of French law and also of Council Directive 93/119 EC (1) which specifically forbids the religious slaughter of animals in the open air. To make matters worse, the animals are often appallingly treated before being slaughtered, which is a violation of Article 3 of Directive 93/119 EC. 1. Why has the Commission as the guardian of the European Treaties and legislation so far failed to act in this matter? 2. When does it Article 226) owing to its failure to implement Directive 93/119 EC? intend to initiate proceedings against France for violating the Treaties (under (1) OJ L 340, 31. 12. 1993, p. 21. Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (11 May 2000) Member States are responsible for the enforcement of Community legislation concerning the slaughter and killing of animals in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993, on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. The Commission is informed about the treatment of animals during this event. The inadequate slaughter- house capacity in certain urban areas of France appears to be one of the reasons for the observations made with regard to the treatment of animals during the festival. The Commission considers that the French authorities must find a practical solution for the problem concerning slaughterhouse capacity. On the other hand, treatment of animals which causes suffering during restraint and slaughter is not acceptable. The French authorities have been contacted concerning the need to improve the arrangements. On this occasion, reassurances were received prior to the festival that the French authorities were taking a wide range of measures including close contacts with the different Islamic religious and cultural groups to involve them more widely in discussions on this issue in order to improve the situation with the view to achieve better animal welfare and hygiene conditions