20 Amendments of Ieke van den BURG related to 2008/2085(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Recital -A (new)
Recital -A (new)
-A. whereas the Treaty establishing the European Community acknowledges the fundamental rights laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as in the Member States' constitutions and in different international treaties and conventions, as fundamental references for EU law and practice,
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Treaty establishing the European Community lays down a number of principles; whereas one of the main activities of the Community isCommunity promotes, on the one hand, an internal market characterised by the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital, as well and on the other, the improvement of living and working conditions so as to make it possible the two whilst maintaining the improvement, and thus promotes a policy in the social sphere,
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas, according to Article 39 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, freedom of movement for workers entails the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment,
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the right to take collective action is also recognised aand to conclude collective agreements is a fundamental right which forms an integral part of the general principles of Community law; whereas in that context it is unacceptable that the Court of Justice should rely on a statement of the Council and the Commission dated 24 September 19961 that has not been adopted by the European Parliament as co-legislator in order to restrict the interpretation of the concepts of "public policy provisions" and "national provisions crucial to political order" merely to mandatory rules laid down in legislation,
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas Article 3(1)(a) of the Services Directive clearly indicates that that Directive is not intended to replace Directive 96/71/EC (the PWD)1 and is without prejudice to it,
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas the Court of Justice has recognised (in its judgment in Case C- 67/96 Albany2) that collective agreements serve social objectives and has clearly rejected the application of competition rules towards collective agreements,
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas restrictions on fundamental freedoms are possible under the EC Treaty, if they pursue legitimate aims compatible with the Treaty, are justified by an overriding reason of public interest, are suitable to attain the objectives pursued and do not go beyond what is necessary to attain them; whereas at the same time, according to Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by that Charter may be made only if they are proportional, necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others,
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas it is exclusivthe role of the Court of Justice to interpret Community law in the light of fundamental rights and freedoms and to ensure that in the interpretation and application of the EC Treaty the lawright balance of objectives is obpreserved,
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas it has been noted that differing views and interpretations existed within the Court of Justice and between the Court and its Advocates-General in the aforementioned cases relating to the PWD, in particular in Case C-341/05 Laval and Case C-346/06 Rüffert,
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Recital G b (new)
Recital G b (new)
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points out that none of the recent judgments of the Court of Justice affects either the content of any collective agreements which might be concluded in Member States or the right to conclude such; 1 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 December 2007 in Case C-438/05 International Transporgive an unsatisfactory interpretation of the relationship between the rules relating to the freedom to provide services and the fundamental rights to take collective action and to conclude collective agreements, and thus create confusion about the PWD, which – as stated in recital 17 of that directive – is intended to ensure that Wworkers' Federation and Finish Seamen's Union (the Viking case), OJ C 51, 23.02.2008, p. 11; judgment of enjoy those terms and conditions of employment that are most favourable to them; is concerned theat Court of Justice of 18 December 2007 in Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri Ltd (the Laval case), OJ C 51, 23.02.2008, p. 9; judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 April 2008 in Case C-346/06 Rüffert, OJ C 128, 24.5.2008, p. 9. relies on the above-mentioned statement of the Council and the Commission dated 24 September 1996, that has not been adopted by the European Parliament as co- legislator, in order to restrict the interpretation of the concepts of "public policy provisions" and "national provisions crucial to political order" merely to mandatory rules laid down in legislation, since in many Member States those fundamental rights are implemented not via legislation but in the form of collective agreements;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that, according to the case- law of the Court of Justice, Member States may not impose minimum standards in matters other than those provided for in the PWD and the content of such minimum standards may not be determined by a source which is not provided for by that directive the fact that in both the Laval and the Rüffert judgments the Court of Justice did not follow the advice of its Advocates-General indicates that different views and interpretations exist inside the Court;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Observes that national rules which fail to take into account collecIs firmly attached to its prerogatives agreements, irrespective of their content, to which undertakings that post workers to a host country are already bound in the Member State in which they are established, give rise, as ascertained by the Court of Justice, to discrimination against such undertakings, in so far as under those national rules they are treated in the same way as national unds a lawmaker and legislator and considers that, when secondary legislation gives rise to differences of interpretation and opinion amongst judges in Member States and even inside the Court of Justice, it is imperative to review and adapt such legislation with a view to clarifying, via a democratic decision-making process, the right balance of interests and fundamental rights involved, as well as to create legal certakings which have not concluded a collective agreementty for all parties involved and a clear legal framework for court rulings;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. RecognisNotes that, as the Court of Justice has clearly stated in the Laval and Viking cases, that the right to take collective action falls within the scope of application of Community law, in particular of Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, and mustshould therefore be justified by an overriding reason of public interest, mustshould be proportionate and mustshould use appropriate means which do not go beyond what is necessary; emphasises in that context that, in accordance with the judgments of the Court of Justice, the right to take collective action for the protection of workers may constitute such an overriding reason;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that the horizontal effect of certain provisions of the EC Treaty depends on precise conditions being fulfilled, inter alia the condition that they confer rights on an individual who has an interest in compliance with the obligations thus laid down; recognises that, in the specific circumstances of the cases recently ruled on by the Court of Justice,expresses concerns that the horizontal direct effect of Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty was duly identifiedleads to uncertainty in industrial relations which could result in a flood of cases before the courts;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Member States to ensure proper implementatiCommission to propose as soon, application and enforcement of the PWD; calls on the Commission to provide appropriate guidance to Member States regarding the implementation, application and enforcement of that directive in accordance with the judgments of the Court of Justices possible a review of the PWD that would clarify the intentions of the legislators and lead to better legislation and greater legal certainty;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. WelcomeIs in that respect of the view that the Commission's Recommendation of 3 April 2008 and the Council Conclusions of 9 June 2008 on enhanced administrative cooperation in the context of the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services are insufficient and leave Member States with significant unsolved inconsistencies and complexities that clearly do not make a good case for the better legislation agenda;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission to take appropriate action vis-à-vis those Member States that do not apply Community law in this field as interpreted by thegive priority and precedence to this legal clarification process over the taking of further action vis-à-vis those Member States that struggle with the application of contradictory Community law and Court of Justice case-law.