Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-25-Speech-2-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051025.3.2-009"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". Mr President, let me confirm that the Commission does not call into question the organisation of labour relations and the system of collective agreements in Sweden or indeed any other Member State. It is entirely a matter for each Member State to determine how labour relations are organised and whether or not its system includes collective bargaining. The Commission recognises the important role that collective agreements play in bringing stability and predictability to economic and social relations in the many Member States that utilise these methods.
This happens to be a ‘sensitive’ issue in a Member State. But does the mere fact that an issue is sensitive deprive me of my right to express a view or carry out my duty? I believe in the necessity for the Commission to be impartial and fair in the exercise of its duties. I will continue to voice my opinions loud and clear. I do not care if it means upsetting some people. I passionately believe in the primary role of the Commission to ensure the rules of the Treaty are applied and I will vigorously defend that role. I have sworn to do so.
There are 25 Member States in the Union. I make no distinction between them. Just because Latvia is a new Member State and one of the smallest, that does not mean its complaints are less important. Latvian trade union members are entitled to have their interests defended as much as Swedish trade union members.
Neither I nor the Commission call into question the social model of any Member State or the way in which it organises labour relations. One of the strengths of the Union is its diversity. I have my views about what is good for the economy. I have never hidden these views. I also have my views about how the challenges and opportunities arising from globalisation should be addressed and I do not believe it is an option to maintain barriers and try to pretend that competition does not exist, or can be kept outside the borders.
However, I have never said that there is a single recipe for running every economy. There is no single recipe for organising labour relations and there is no single recipe for a social model. What works in one country might not work for another. I will therefore not express any view on whether the social model of one Member State is better or worse than that of another. That is a matter for political choice in each country and I know that every system will find supporters and critics. The truth lies, most of the time, in the middle. No single system has only advantages. Every system and every choice has downsides. Choices and preferences may also change. What is good now may not necessarily be so in five years’ time.
The subject being discussed today is not whether the social system of a country is under threat or whether that system is an example to others. The real issue for me is what we mean by an internal market. What do Article 49 of the Treaty and the freedom to provide services mean? What do Article 12 and the principle of non-discrimination mean?
No one has questioned the enormous benefits the internal market brings, the extra growth and the extra jobs it has created. We should not be afraid of the internal market. We should embrace it. We have a Union of 25 Member States. The world is not waiting for us to take advantage of the internal market we live in. Others will do it for us if we do not wake up. I will defend the rights laid down in the Treaty. I will continue to apply its provisions in an even-handed way. But if members of this House expect me to creep around quietly and not upset some Member States and some Members of the European Parliament, then I am afraid that they are going to be disappointed.
At the opening of the Brussels sitting earlier this month, reference was made to the fact that I had recently stated that the Scandinavian model of collective agreements was not compatible with the EC Treaty.
Those who know me will be very much aware that I have vigorously supported collective agreements in the Member State I know best. In my home country, I have been directly involved in more national partnership negotiations than any previous Irish Minister for Finance. In my time in that office, I was regarded, together with my Prime Minister, as the leading government defender of the
of Irish social partnership.
During a recent visit to a number of Member States, including Latvia and Sweden, the press asked me about the ongoing investigation in what is known as the Laval case. It is a case involving a Latvian construction company, Laval, that won a tender to build a school in Vaxholm in Sweden. As a result of a dispute on whether Laval had to sign up to the Swedish collective agreement and whether it had to pay the average Swedish wage in the construction sector, the Swedish construction trade union blocked the construction site. The action taken by the Swedish construction trade union eventually led Laval to terminate the contract and the company ultimately went bankrupt. The matter was brought before the Swedish Labour Court, which in turn referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
The fact that the Swedish Labour Court referred the matter to the European Court of Justice demonstrates that the legal situation is complicated. Whether the Swedish authorities and the trade union were right in how they handled this case will be determined by the Swedish Labour Court in the light of the ruling that will be given by the European Court of Justice.
The Commission will be invited to present its analysis of the situation and all the legal elements, including Article 49 of the Treaty on the freedom to provide services and the application of the posted workers directive. This analysis is complex and will take some time. The Commission has not yet formed a view on this. Those are the facts of the matter.
As to the broader question of how the Commission sees the development of the internal market and the European social model, let me stress that, for the Commission, the development of the internal market and the preservation of the European social model go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive; they reinforce each other. The internal market creates new opportunities for businesses, consumers and workers. This allows the preservation and further development of social rights, in accordance with the collective preferences of each individual Member State.
The Commission has an onerous duty in making sure that the basic rights and freedoms set down in the Treaty are respected throughout the Union. As guardian of the internal market, I exercise my responsibilities in an even-handed manner. To be credible, there is no alternative.
I find it extraordinary that I should have to justify remarks I made on an incident that raise questions about its compatibility with Article 49 of the Treaty. I was not the first to raise this question. It was the Swedish Labour court that asked whether there is incompatibility with Community law, in particular the posting of workers directive, Article 49 on the free movement of services and Article 12 on non-discrimination."@en4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let me confirm that the Commission does not call into question the organisation of labour relations and the system of collective agreements in Sweden or indeed any other Member State. It is entirely a matter for each Member State to determine how labour relations are organised and whether or not its system includes collective bargaining. The Commission recognises the important role that collective agreements play in bringing stability and predictability to economic and social relations in the many Member States that utilise these methods.
This happens to be a ‘sensitive’ issue in a Member State. But does the mere fact that an issue is sensitive deprive me of my right to express a view or carry out my duty? I believe in the necessity for the Commission to be impartial and fair in the exercise of its duties. I will continue to voice my opinions loud and clear. I do not care if it means upsetting some people. I passionately believe in the primary role of the Commission to ensure the rules of the Treaty are applied and I will vigorously defend that role. I have sworn to do so.
There are 25 Member States in the Union. I make no distinction between them. Just because Latvia is a new Member State and one of the smallest, that does not mean its complaints are less important. Latvian trade union members are entitled to have their interests defended as much as Swedish trade union members.
Neither I nor the Commission call into question the social model of any Member State or the way in which it organises labour relations. One of the strengths of the Union is its diversity. I have my views about what is good for the economy. I have never hidden these views. I also have my views about how the challenges and opportunities arising from globalisation should be addressed and I do not believe it is an option to maintain barriers and try to pretend that competition does not exist, or can be kept outside the borders.
However, I have never said that there is a single recipe for running every economy. There is no single recipe for organising labour relations and there is no single recipe for a social model. What works in one country might not work for another. I will therefore not express any view on whether the social model of one Member State is better or worse than that of another. That is a matter for political choice in each country and I know that every system will find supporters and critics. The truth lies, most of the time, in the middle. No single system has only advantages. Every system and every choice has downsides. Choices and preferences may also change. What is good now may not necessarily be so in five years’ time.
The subject being discussed today is not whether the social system of a country is under threat or whether that system is an example to others. The real issue for me is what we mean by an internal market. What do Article 49 of the Treaty and the freedom to provide services mean? What do Article 12 and the principle of non-discrimination mean?
No one has questioned the enormous benefits the internal market brings, the extra growth and the extra jobs it has created. We should not be afraid of the internal market. We should embrace it. We have a Union of 25 Member States. The world is not waiting for us to take advantage of the internal market we live in. Others will do it for us if we do not wake up. I will defend the rights laid down in the Treaty. I will continue to apply its provisions in an even-handed way. But if members of this House expect me to creep around quietly and not upset some Member States and some Members of the European Parliament, then I am afraid that they are going to be disappointed.
At the opening of the Brussels sitting earlier this month, reference was made to the fact that I had recently stated that the Scandinavian model of collective agreements was not compatible with the EC Treaty.
Those who know me will be very much aware that I have vigorously supported collective agreements in the Member State I know best. In my home country, I have been directly involved in more national partnership negotiations than any previous Irish Minister for Finance. In my time in that office, I was regarded, together with my Prime Minister, as the leading government defender of the
of Irish social partnership.
During a recent visit to a number of Member States, including Latvia and Sweden, the press asked me about the ongoing investigation in what is known as the Laval case. It is a case involving a Latvian construction company, Laval, that won a tender to build a school in Vaxholm in Sweden. As a result of a dispute on whether Laval had to sign up to the Swedish collective agreement and whether it had to pay the average Swedish wage in the construction sector, the Swedish construction trade union blocked the construction site. The action taken by the Swedish construction trade union eventually led Laval to terminate the contract and the company ultimately went bankrupt. The matter was brought before the Swedish Labour Court, which in turn referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
The fact that the Swedish Labour Court referred the matter to the European Court of Justice demonstrates that the legal situation is complicated. Whether the Swedish authorities and the trade union were right in how they handled this case will be determined by the Swedish Labour Court in the light of the ruling that will be given by the European Court of Justice.
The Commission will be invited to present its analysis of the situation and all the legal elements, including Article 49 of the Treaty on the freedom to provide services and the application of the posted workers directive. This analysis is complex and will take some time. The Commission has not yet formed a view on this. Those are the facts of the matter.
As to the broader question of how the Commission sees the development of the internal market and the European social model, let me stress that, for the Commission, the development of the internal market and the preservation of the European social model go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive; they reinforce each other. The internal market creates new opportunities for businesses, consumers and workers. This allows the preservation and further development of social rights, in accordance with the collective preferences of each individual Member State.
The Commission has an onerous duty in making sure that the basic rights and freedoms set down in the Treaty are respected throughout the Union. As guardian of the internal market, I exercise my responsibilities in an even-handed manner. To be credible, there is no alternative.
I find it extraordinary that I should have to justify remarks I made on an incident that raise questions about its compatibility with Article 49 of the Treaty. I was not the first to raise this question. It was the Swedish Labour court that asked whether there is incompatibility with Community law, in particular the posting of workers directive, Article 49 on the free movement of services and Article 12 on non-discrimination."@cs1
"Hr. formand, jeg vil gerne bekræfte, at Kommissionen ikke rejser tvivl om arbejdsmarkedsrelationernes tilrettelæggelse og det kollektive overenskomstsystem i Sverige eller nogen anden medlemsstat. Det er helt op til den enkelte medlemsstat at afgøre, hvordan arbejdsmarkedsrelationerne tilrettelægges, og om systemet skal omfatte kollektive forhandlinger eller ej. Kommissionen anerkender de kollektive overenskomsters store betydning for at skabe stabile og forudsigelige økonomiske og sociale forhold i de mange medlemsstater, der benytter sig af disse metoder.
Der er tilfældigvis tale om et "følsomt" spørgsmål i en medlemsstat. Men det simple faktum, at et spørgsmål er følsomt, berøver mig vel ikke retten til at fremsætte et synspunkt eller gøre min pligt? Jeg tror på nødvendigheden af, at Kommissionen er upartisk og retfærdig i udøvelsen af sine forpligtelser. Jeg vil fortsat give min mening klart og tydeligt til kende. Jeg er ligeglad med, om det bekymrer nogen. Jeg er en varm tilhænger af, at Kommissionen først og fremmest skal sikre gennemførelsen af traktatens bestemmelser, og jeg vil på det kraftigste forsvare den opgave. Det har jeg svoret at ville gøre.
Der er 25 medlemsstater i EU. Jeg sondrer ikke mellem dem. Blot fordi Letland er en ny medlemsstat og en af de mindste, betyder det ikke, at dets klager er mindre væsentlige. Lettiske fagforeningsmedlemmer har ret til at få deres rettigheder forsvaret i lige så høj grad som de svenske fagforeningsmedlemmer.
Hverken jeg eller Kommissionen stiller spørgsmålstegn ved en medlemsstats samfundsmodel eller organisering af arbejdsmarkedsrelationer. En af EU's styrker er dets mangfoldighed. Jeg har mine holdninger til, hvad der er godt for økonomien. Jeg har aldrig lagt skjul på disse synspunkter. Jeg har også mine holdninger til, hvordan man skal håndtere udfordringer og muligheder som følge af globaliseringen, og jeg mener ikke, at det skal være muligt at bevare hindringer og forsøge at lade som om, at konkurrencen ikke findes, eller at den kan holdes uden for grænserne.
Jeg har imidlertid aldrig sagt, at der er én bestemt opskrift på håndteringen af enhver økonomi. Der findes ikke én opskrift på organiseringen af arbejdsmarkedsrelationerne, og der findes ikke én opskrift på en samfundsmodel. Det, der fungerer i ét land, fungerer måske ikke i et andet. Jeg vil derfor ikke udtale mig om, hvorvidt ét lands samfundsmodel er bedre eller dårligere end et andets. Det afhænger af politiske valg i de enkelte lande, og jeg ved, at alle systemer har tilhængere og kritikere. Oftest findes sandheden et sted i midten. Intet system har udelukkende fordele. Der er også ulemper ved alle systemer og alle valg. Valg og præferencer kan også skifte. Det, der er godt i dag, er ikke nødvendigvis godt om fem år.
I dag diskuterer vi ikke, om et lands samfundssystem er truet, eller om det er et eksempel for andre. For mig handler det i virkeligheden om, hvad vi forstår ved et indre marked. Hvad betyder traktatens artikel 49 og den frie bevægelighed for tjenesteydelser? Hvad betyder artikel 12 og princippet om ikke at udøve forskelsbehandling?
Ingen har betvivlet de enorme fordele ved det indre marked, den ekstra vækst og de ekstra job. Vi skal ikke være bange for det indre marked. Vi skal tage det til os. Vi har et EU med 25 medlemsstater. Verden venter ikke på, at vi udnytter det indre marked, vi lever i. Andre vil gøre det for os, hvis ikke vi vågner op. Jeg vil forsvare de rettigheder, der er fastsat i traktaten. Jeg vil fortsat anvende traktatens bestemmelser på en upartisk måde. Men hvis medlemmerne af Europa-Parlamentet forventer, at jeg vil liste stille omkring for ikke at bekymre visse medlemsstater eller visse medlemmer af Europa-Parlamentet, så er jeg bange for, at de bliver skuffet.
Ved åbningen af plenarmødet i Bruxelles tidligere på måneden blev der henvist til, at jeg for nylig sagde, at den skandinaviske model med kollektive overenskomster ikke er forenelig med EF-traktaten.
De, der kender mig, ved udmærket, at jeg på det kraftigste har støttet de kollektive overenskomstforhandlinger i den medlemsstat, jeg kender bedst. I mit hjemland har jeg været direkte involveret i flere nationale partnerskabsforhandlinger end nogen anden tidligere irsk finansminister. Da jeg sad i det embede blev jeg sammen med min premierminister betragtet som den førende regeringsforkæmper for den irske sociale partnerskabsmodel.
Under et nyligt besøg i en række medlemsstater inklusive Letland og Sverige spurgte pressen mig om de igangværende undersøgelser af den såkaldte Laval-sag. Sagen omhandler det lettiske byggeselskab Laval, der vandt et udbud om at bygge en skole i Vaxholm i Sverige. På grund af en tvist om, hvorvidt Laval skulle overholde de svenske kollektive overenskomster og betale den gennemsnitlige svenske løn i bygge- og anlægssektoren, blev byggepladsen blokeret af den svenske fagforening for bygge- og anlægssektoren. Fagforeningens indsats fik i sidste ende Laval til at opsige kontrakten, og virksomheden gik i sidste ende fallit. Sagen blev indbragt for den svenske arbejdsret, der sendte den videre til EF-Domstolen for at få en præjudiciel afgørelse.
Det faktum, at den svenske arbejdsret indbragte sagen for EF-Domstolen, viser, at det er en kompliceret retsstilling. Hvorvidt de svenske myndigheder og fagforeningen håndterede sagen korrekt, vil blive afgjort af den svenske arbejdsret på baggrund af EF-Domstolens afgørelse.
Kommissionen vil blive opfordret til at fremlægge sin analyse af sagen og alle de retlige elementer inklusive traktatens artikel 49 om fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser og anvendelsen af direktivet om udsendte arbejdstagere. Det vil tage nogen tid at foretage denne komplicerede vurdering. Kommissionen er endnu ikke nået frem til et resultat. Sådan ligger landet.
Med hensyn til det mere vidtgående spørgsmål om, hvordan Kommissionen betragter udviklingen af det indre marked og den europæiske samfundsmodel, vil jeg understrege, at udviklingen af det indre marked og bevarelsen af den europæiske samfundsmodel efter Kommissionens opfattelse går hånd i hånd. Det ene udelukker ikke det andet. Tværtimod styrker de hinanden. Det indre marked skaber nye muligheder for virksomhederne, forbrugerne og arbejdstagerne. Det gør det muligt at bevare og videreudvikle de sociale rettigheder i overensstemmelse med den enkelte medlemsstats kollektive præferencer.
Kommissionen har en tung pligt til at sørge for, at traktatens grundlæggende rettigheder og friheder respekteres i hele EU. Som det indre markeds vogter udfører jeg min opgave på en upartisk måde. Det er jeg nødt til for at være troværdig.
Jeg finder det ejendommeligt, at jeg skal retfærdiggøre mine bemærkninger om en hændelse, der muligvis var uforenelig med traktatens artikel 49. Jeg var ikke den første, der tog sagen op. Det var den svenske arbejdsret, der spurgte, om der er tale om uforenelighed med fællesskabsbestemmelserne og navnlig med direktivet om udstationering af arbejdstagere, med artikel 49 om tjenesteydelsernes frie bevægelighed samt med artikel 12 om forbud mod forskelsbehandling."@da2
".
Herr Präsident! Ich darf Ihnen versichern, dass die Kommission die Organisation der Arbeitsbeziehungen und das System der Tarifabschlüsse weder in Schweden noch in einem anderen Mitgliedstaat in Frage stellt. Es liegt ausschließlich bei jedem Mitgliedstaat, wie dieser die Arbeitsbeziehungen organisiert und ob sein System Tarifvereinbarungen vorsieht oder nicht. Die Kommission erkennt an, dass Tarifvereinbarungen in vielen Mitgliedstaaten, in denen sie gelten, bei der Erzielung von Stabilität und Vorhersagbarkeit von Wirtschafts- und Sozialbeziehungen eine wichtige Rolle spielen.
Hierbei scheint es sich um ein „sensibles“ Thema in einem Mitgliedstaat zu handeln. Doch sollte die Sensibilität eines bestimmten Themas mich davon abhalten, eine Meinung zu äußern oder meine Pflicht zu erfüllen? Ich bin fest davon überzeugt, dass die Kommission ihre Aufgaben in gerechter und unvoreingenommener Weise erfüllen sollte. Ich werde auch weiterhin meine Ansichten laut und deutlich äußern. Sollte ich damit einige Leute vor den Kopf stoßen, so nehme ich das in Kauf. Ich glaube unbedingt an die Vorreiterrolle der Kommission bei der Sicherstellung der Umsetzung der Bestimmungen des Vertrags, und ich werde diese Rolle vehement verteidigen. Das habe ich geschworen.
Die Union hat 25 Mitgliedstaaten. Ich mache zwischen ihnen keinen Unterschied. Nur weil Lettland ein neues Mitglied ist und eines der kleinsten, heißt das nicht, dass seine Beschwerden weniger wichtig wären. Die Gewerkschaftsmitglieder in Lettland haben genauso wie die schwedischen Gewerkschafter ein Recht auf Verteidigung ihrer Interessen.
Weder ich noch die Kommission stellen das Sozialmodell eines Mitgliedstaats oder die Art der Organisation seiner Arbeitsbeziehungen in Frage. Zu den Stärken der Union zählt ihre Vielfalt. Ich habe bestimmte Ansichten darüber, was gut für die Wirtschaft ist. Damit habe ich nie hinterm Berg gehalten. Ferner habe ich meine Ansichten darüber, wie man den sich aus der Globalisierung ergebenden Herausforderungen und Chancen begegnen sollte, und ich halte es für keinen gangbaren Weg, Grenzen aufrechtzuerhalten und so zu tun, als gäbe es keinen Wettbewerb oder dass er vor unseren Grenzen Halt machen würde.
Allerdings habe ich niemals behauptet, dass es für alle Volkswirtschaften nur ein einziges Rezept gibt. So etwas gibt es weder für die Organisation der Arbeitsbeziehungen noch für Sozialmodelle. Was in einem Land funktioniert, geht möglicherweise in einem anderen nicht. Daher werde ich mich keinesfalls dazu äußern, ob das Sozialmodell des einen Mitgliedstaates besser oder schlechter als das eines anderen Mitgliedstaates ist. Diese politische Wahl obliegt einem jeden Land selbst, und ich weiß, dass jedes System seine Befürworter und Kritiker hat. Meist liegt die Wahrheit in der Mitte. Es gibt kein einziges System, das nur Vorteile aufzuweisen hätte, jedes System und jede Wahl hat Schattenseiten. Auch die Auswahl und Präferenzen können sich ändern. Was heute noch gut ist, kann in fünf Jahren schon ganz anders aussehen.
Thema unserer heutigen Debatte ist nicht, ob sich das Sozialsystem eines Landes in Gefahr befindet oder ob dieses System beispielhaft für andere ist. Nach meiner Ansicht besteht die eigentliche Frage darin, was wir unter einem Binnenmarkt verstehen. Was bedeuten Artikel 49 des Vertrags und der freie Dienstleistungsverkehr? Was bedeutet Artikel 12 und das Prinzip der Nichtdiskriminierung?
Niemand stellt die enormen Vorteile des Binnenmarktes, das zusätzliche Wachstum und die durch ihn entstandenen zusätzlichen Arbeitsplätze in Frage. Wir sollten vor dem Binnenmarkt keine Furcht haben, sondern ihn uns zu Eigen machen. Wir haben eine Union aus 25 Mitgliedstaaten. Die Welt wartet nicht darauf, dass wir unseren Binnenmarkt nutzen. Andere werden es für uns tun, wenn wir nicht aufwachen. Ich werde die im Vertrag niedergelegten Rechte verteidigen. Ich werde seine Bestimmungen weiterhin unparteiisch anwenden. Wenn jedoch Abgeordnete dieses Hohen Hauses von mir erwarten, dass ich hier leise herumschleiche, um einige Mitgliedstaaten oder Europaabgeordnete nicht aufzubringen, dann werde ich sie leider enttäuschen müssen.
Zu Beginn der Sitzung in Brüssel in diesem Monat wurde auf meine kürzliche Äußerung verwiesen, dass das skandinavische Modell von Tarifvereinbarungen nicht mit dem EU-Vertrag vereinbar sei.
Wer mich kennt, wird sehr gut wissen, dass ich in dem Mitgliedstaat, den ich am besten kenne, eifriger Verfechter von Tarifabkommen war. Zu Hause in Irland war ich als Finanzminister an mehr nationalen Tarifverhandlungen beteiligt als jeder meiner Amtsvorgänger. In meiner Amtszeit wurde ich in Regierungskreisen gemeinsam mit dem Premierminister als führender Verteidiger des
der irischen Sozialpartnerschaft angesehen.
Bei meinem kürzlichen Besuch in mehrere Mitgliedstaaten, darunter Lettland und Schweden, wurde ich von der Presse zu den laufenden Ermittlungen im so genannten Fall Laval befragt. Darin geht es um ein lettisches Bauunternehmen, Laval, das eine Ausschreibung zum Bau einer Schule im schwedischen Vaxholm gewonnen hatte. Nach Auseinandersetzungen darüber, ob Laval die schwedische Tarifvereinbarung unterzeichnen und den in der schwedischen Baubranche üblichen Durchschnittslohn zahlen müsse, hat die schwedische Gewerkschaft die Baustelle blockiert. Die Aktion der schwedischen Baugewerkschaft führte letztlich dazu, dass Laval den Vertrag kündigen musste und schließlich Konkurs anmeldete. Die Angelegenheit wurde vor das schwedische Arbeitsgericht gebracht, das wiederum den Fall an den Europäischen Gerichtshof zwecks Vorabentscheidung überwies.
Die Tatsache, dass das schwedische Arbeitsgericht den Fall an den Europäischen Gerichtshof weiterverwiesen hat, lässt auf die Kompliziertheit der Rechtslage schließen. Ob die schwedischen Behörden und die Gewerkschaft in diesem Fall richtig gehandelt haben, wird vom schwedischen Arbeitsgericht auf der Grundlage des Urteils des Europäischen Gerichtshofs entschieden.
Die Kommission wird um ihre Analyse der Lage und aller rechtlichen Aspekte ersucht werden, darunter Artikel 49 EU-Vertrag über den freien Dienstleistungsverkehr sowie die Anwendung der Richtlinie über die Entsendung von Arbeitnehmern. Aufgrund ihrer Komplexität wird die Analyse einige Zeit in Anspruch nehmen. Die Kommission hat sich dazu noch keine Meinung gebildet. Das ist der Stand der Dinge.
In Bezug auf die generelle Frage, wie die Kommission die Entwicklung des Binnenmarktes sowie des europäischen Sozialmodells beurteilt, möchte ich darauf hinweisen, dass nach Ansicht der Kommission die Entwicklung des Binnenmarktes und die Erhaltung des europäischen Sozialmodells Hand in Hand gehen. Sie schließen sich nicht gegenseitig aus, sondern bedingen einander. Der Binnenmarkt schafft neue Möglichkeiten für Unternehmen, Verbraucher und Arbeitnehmer, was die Erhaltung und Weiterentwicklung sozialer Rechte in Übereinstimmung mit den tariflichen Vorstellungen der einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten ermöglicht.
Der Kommission fällt die schwierige Aufgabe zu sicherzustellen, dass die im Vertrag niedergelegten Grundrechte und -freiheiten in der gesamten EU respektiert werden. Als Hüter des Binnenmarktes gehe ich an die Erfüllung meiner Aufgaben unparteiisch heran, alles andere würde mich unglaubwürdig machen.
Es wundert mich sehr, dass ich Äußerungen rechtfertigen muss, die ich im Zusammenhang mit einem Vorfall getätigt habe, der Fragen hinsichtlich seiner Vereinbarkeit mit Artikel 49 EU-Vertrag aufwirft. Ich habe diese Frage nicht als Erster gestellt. Es war das schwedische Arbeitsgericht, das die Frage der Unvereinbarkeit mit dem Gemeinschaftsrecht aufgeworfen hat, insbesondere mit der Arbeitnehmerentsenderichtlinie, Artikel 49 über den freien Dienstleistungsverkehr sowie Artikel 12 über Nichtdiskriminierung."@de9
".
Κύριε Πρόεδρε, επιτρέψτε μου να επιβεβαιώσω ότι η Επιτροπή δεν αμφισβητεί τον οργανισμό εργασιακών σχέσεων και το σύστημα των συλλογικών συμβάσεων στη Σουηδία ή σε οποιοδήποτε άλλο κράτος μέλος. Είναι αποκλειστικά θέμα του κάθε κράτους μέλους να καθορίσει τον τρόπο οργάνωσης των εργασιακών σχέσεων και αν το σύστημά του θα περιλαμβάνει συλλογικές διαπραγματεύσεις. Η Επιτροπή αναγνωρίζει τον σημαντικό ρόλο που διαδραματίζουν οι συλλογικές συμβάσεις στην επίτευξη σταθερότητας και προβλεψιμότητας των οικονομικών και κοινωνικών σχέσεων στα πολλά κράτη μέλη που χρησιμοποιούν αυτές τις μεθόδους.
Αυτό τυγχάνει να αποτελεί «ευαίσθητο» θέμα για ένα κράτος μέλος. Αλλά μπορεί μόνο το γεγονός ότι ένα θέμα είναι ευαίσθητο να μου στερήσει το δικαίωμά μου να εκφράσω μια άποψη ή να κάνω το καθήκον μου; Πιστεύω στην ανάγκη της Επιτροπής να είναι αντικειμενική και δίκαιη στην άσκηση των καθηκόντων της. Θα συνεχίσω να εκφράζω τις απόψεις μου δυνατά και ξεκάθαρα. Δεν με νοιάζει αν αυτό ανησυχεί κάποιους. Πιστεύω με πάθος στον πρωταρχικό ρόλο της Επιτροπής να διασφαλίζει την εφαρμογή των κανονισμών της Συνθήκης και θα υπερασπιστώ σθεναρά αυτό τον ρόλο. Έχω ορκιστεί να το κάνω αυτό.
Υπάρχουν 25 κράτη μέλη στην Ένωση. Δεν κάνω καμία διάκριση μεταξύ τους. Απλά και μόνο επειδή η Λετονία είναι ένα νέο κράτος μέλος και ένα από τα μικρότερα, αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι τα παράπονά της είναι λιγότερο σημαντικά. Οι συνδικαλιστές της Λετονίας έχουν τα ίδια δικαιώματα προάσπισης των συμφερόντων τους με τους σουηδούς συνδικαλιστές.
Ούτε εγώ ούτε η Επιτροπή αμφισβητούμε το κοινωνικό μοντέλο οποιουδήποτε κράτους μέλους ή τον τρόπο που οργανώνει τις εργασιακές σχέσεις. Ένα από τα δυνατά σημεία της Ένωσης είναι η διαφορετικότητά της. Έχω τις απόψεις μου για το τι είναι καλό για την οικονομία. Δεν έκρυψα ποτέ αυτές τις απόψεις. Έχω επίσης τις απόψεις μου για τον τρόπο αντιμετώπισης των προκλήσεων και των ευκαιριών που προκύπτουν από την παγκοσμιοποίηση και δεν πιστεύω ότι αποτελεί επιλογή η διατήρηση των εμποδίων και η προσπάθεια να προσποιηθούμε ότι δεν υπάρχει ανταγωνισμός ή ότι μπορεί να παραμείνει εκτός συνόρων.
Ωστόσο, δεν έχω ποτέ πει ότι υπάρχει μία μοναδική συνταγή για τον τρόπο διοίκησης κάθε οικονομίας. Δεν υπάρχει μία μοναδική συνταγή για την οργάνωση των εργασιακών σχέσεων και δεν υπάρχει μία μοναδική συνταγή για ένα κοινωνικό μοντέλο. Ό,τι λειτουργεί σε μία χώρα μπορεί να μην λειτουργεί σε μία άλλη. Ως εκ τούτου, δεν θα εκφράσω καμία άποψη σχετικά με το αν το κοινωνικό μοντέλο ενός κράτους μέλους είναι καλύτερο ή χειρότερο από αυτό ενός άλλου. Αυτό είναι ζήτημα πολιτικής επιλογής σε κάθε χώρα και γνωρίζω ότι κάθε σύστημα θα βρει υποστηρικτές και επικριτές. Η αλήθεια βρίσκεται, τις περισσότερες φορές, στη μέση. Κανένα σύστημα δεν έχει μόνο πλεονεκτήματα. Κάθε σύστημα και κάθε επιλογή έχει αρνητικά στοιχεία. Οι επιλογές και οι προτιμήσεις μπορεί επίσης να αλλάξουν. Αυτό που είναι καλό τώρα μπορεί να μην είναι απαραίτητα καλό μετά από πέντε χρόνια.
Το θέμα που συζητείται σήμερα δεν είναι αν το κοινωνικό σύστημα μιας χώρας απειλείται ή αν αυτό το σύστημα αποτελεί παράδειγμα για τις άλλες. Το πραγματικό ζήτημα για εμένα είναι τι εννοούμε με την εσωτερική αγορά. Τι σημαίνει το άρθρο 49 της Συνθήκης και η ελευθερία παροχής υπηρεσιών; Τι σημαίνει το άρθρο 12 και η αρχή της απαγόρευσης διακρίσεων;
Κανείς δεν έχει αμφισβητήσει τα τεράστια οφέλη που επιφέρει η εσωτερική αγορά, η επιπλέον ανάπτυξη και οι επιπλέον θέσεις εργασίας που έχει δημιουργήσει. Δεν πρέπει να φοβόμαστε την εσωτερική αγορά. Πρέπει να επωφεληθούμε από αυτήν. Έχουμε μια Ένωση 25 κρατών μελών. Ο κόσμος δεν θα μας περιμένει να εκμεταλλευθούμε την εσωτερική αγορά στην οποία ζούμε. Θα το κάνουν άλλοι αντί για εμάς, αν δεν αφυπνιστούμε. Θα υπερασπιστώ τα δικαιώματα που συμπεριλαμβάνονται στη Συνθήκη. Θα συνεχίσω να εφαρμόζω τις διατάξεις της με δίκαιο τρόπο. Αλλά αν οι βουλευτές αυτού του Σώματος περιμένουν ότι θα κινηθώ ήρεμα και δεν θα ταράξω ορισμένα κράτη μέλη και ορισμένους βουλευτές του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, τότε φοβάμαι ότι θα απογοητευτούν.
Κατά την έναρξη της περιόδου συνόδου των Βρυξελλών νωρίτερα αυτόν τον μήνα, έγινε αναφορά στο θέμα που επεσήμανα προσφάτως ότι το σκανδιναβικό μοντέλο των συλλογικών συμβάσεων δεν συνάδει με τη Συνθήκη ΕΚ.
Όσοι με γνωρίζουν, θα ξέρουν πολύ καλά ότι έχω στηρίξει σθεναρά τις συλλογικές συμβάσεις στο κράτος μέλος που γνωρίζω καλύτερα. Στην πατρίδα μου, έχω αναμιχθεί άμεσα σε περισσότερες διαπραγματεύσεις εθνικών εταιρικών σχέσεων από οποιονδήποτε άλλο ιρλανδό υπουργό Οικονομικών. Κατά τη διάρκεια της θητείας μου, θεωρήθηκα μαζί με τον πρωθυπουργό, ως ο βασικός υπερασπιστής από την πλευρά της κυβέρνησης του
της ιρλανδικής κοινωνικής εταιρικής σχέσης.
Κατά τη διάρκεια πρόσφατης επίσκεψής μου σε μια σειρά κρατών μελών, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της Λετονίας και της Σουηδίας, ρωτήθηκα από τον Τύπο για τις έρευνες που διεξάγονται σχετικά με την αποκαλούμενη υπόθεση Laval. Πρόκειται για μια υπόθεση που αφορά μια κατασκευαστική εταιρεία της Λετονίας, τη Laval, η οποία κέρδισε έναν διαγωνισμό για την ανέγερση σχολείου στο Vaxholm της Σουηδίας. Κατόπιν μιας διαμάχης σχετικά με το αν η Laval έπρεπε να υπογράψει την σουηδική συλλογική σύμβαση και αν έπρεπε να καταβάλει τον μέσο μισθό της Σουηδίας στον κατασκευαστικό κλάδο, το σουηδικό συνδικάτο του κατασκευαστικού κλάδου απέκλεισε το εργοτάξιο. Η δράση που ανέλαβε το σουηδικό συνδικάτο του κατασκευαστικού κλάδου οδήγησε τελικά τη Laval στη λύση της σύμβασης και η εταιρεία οδηγήθηκε εν τέλει στη χρεοκοπία. Το θέμα παραπέμφθηκε ενώπιον του Σουηδικού Εργατοδικείου, το οποίο με τη σειρά του παρέπεμψε το θέμα στο Ευρωπαϊκό Δικαστήριο για προδικαστική απόφαση.
Το γεγονός ότι το Σουηδικό Εργατοδικείο παρέπεμψε το θέμα στο Ευρωπαϊκό Δικαστήριο καταδεικνύει ότι νομικά η υπόθεση είναι περίπλοκη. Το αν οι σουηδικές αρχές και το συνδικάτο είχαν δίκιο στον τρόπο που αντιμετώπισαν την υπόθεση θα αποφασιστεί από το Σουηδικό Εργατοδικείο υπό το πρίσμα της απόφασης που θα εκδοθεί από το Ευρωπαϊκό Δικαστήριο.
Η Επιτροπή θα κληθεί να παρουσιάσει την ανάλυσή της για την κατάσταση και όλα τα νομικά στοιχεία, συμπεριλαμβανομένου του άρθρου 49 της Συνθήκης σχετικά με την ελευθερία παροχής υπηρεσιών και την εφαρμογή της οδηγίας σχετικά με την απόσπαση εργαζομένων. Αυτή η ανάλυση είναι περίπλοκη και θα χρειαστεί κάποιο χρόνο. Η Επιτροπή δεν έχει ακόμα σχηματίσει άποψη για αυτό το θέμα. Αυτά είναι τα στοιχεία της υπόθεσης.
Ως προς την ευρύτερη ερώτηση σχετικά με το πώς βλέπει η Επιτροπή την ανάπτυξη της εσωτερικής αγοράς και του ευρωπαϊκού κοινωνικού μοντέλου, επιτρέψτε μου να τονίσω ότι, για την Επιτροπή, η ανάπτυξη της εσωτερικής αγοράς και η διατήρηση του ευρωπαϊκού κοινωνικού μοντέλου συμβαδίζουν. Το ένα δεν αποκλείει το άλλο, το ένα ενισχύει το άλλο. Η εσωτερική αγορά δημιουργεί νέες ευκαιρίες για τις επιχειρήσεις, τους καταναλωτές και τους εργαζομένους. Αυτό επιτρέπει τη διατήρηση και περαιτέρω ανάπτυξη των κοινωνικών δικαιωμάτων σύμφωνα με τις συλλογικές προτιμήσεις του κάθε κράτους μέλους ξεχωριστά.
Η Επιτροπή έχει το επαχθές καθήκον να διασφαλίσει ότι τα βασικά δικαιώματα και ελευθερίες που αναφέρονται στη Συνθήκη γίνονται σεβαστά σε όλη την Ένωση. Ως θεματοφύλακας της εσωτερικής αγοράς, ασκώ τις ευθύνες μου με αμερόληπτο τρόπο. Αν θέλουμε να είμαστε αξιόπιστοι, δεν υπάρχει άλλη επιλογή.
Θεωρώ καταπληκτικό το γεγονός ότι πρέπει να δώσω εξηγήσεις για παρατηρήσεις που έκανα σχετικά με ένα περιστατικό το οποίο εγείρει ερωτήματα όσον αφορά τη συμβατότητά του με το άρθρο 49 της Συνθήκης. Δεν ήμουν ο πρώτος που έθεσα αυτό το θέμα. Το Σουηδικό Εργατοδικείο ήταν εκείνο που έθεσε το ερώτημα αν υπάρχει ασυμβίβαστο με την κοινοτική νομοθεσία, συγκεκριμένα την οδηγία σχετικά με την απόσπαση εργαζομένων, το άρθρο 49 για την ελεύθερη διακίνηση υπηρεσιών και το άρθρο 12 για την απαγόρευση των διακρίσεων."@el10
"Mr President, let me confirm that the Commission does not call into question the organisation of labour relations and the system of collective agreements in Sweden or indeed any other Member State. It is entirely a matter for each Member State to determine how labour relations are organised and whether or not its system includes collective bargaining. The Commission recognises the important role that collective agreements play in bringing stability and predictability to economic and social relations in the many Member States that utilise these methods.
This happens to be a ‘sensitive’ issue in a Member State. But does the mere fact that an issue is sensitive deprive me of my right to express a view or carry out my duty? I believe in the necessity for the Commission to be impartial and fair in the exercise of its duties. I will continue to voice my opinions loud and clear. I do not care if it means upsetting some people. I passionately believe in the primary role of the Commission to ensure the rules of the Treaty are applied and I will vigorously defend that role. I have sworn to do so.
There are 25 Member States in the Union. I make no distinction between them. Just because Latvia is a new Member State and one of the smallest, that does not mean its complaints are less important. Latvian trade union members are entitled to have their interests defended as much as Swedish trade union members.
Neither I nor the Commission call into question the social model of any Member State or the way in which it organises labour relations. One of the strengths of the Union is its diversity. I have my views about what is good for the economy. I have never hidden these views. I also have my views about how the challenges and opportunities arising from globalisation should be addressed and I do not believe it is an option to maintain barriers and try to pretend that competition does not exist, or can be kept outside the borders.
However, I have never said that there is a single recipe for running every economy. There is no single recipe for organising labour relations and there is no single recipe for a social model. What works in one country might not work for another. I will therefore not express any view on whether the social model of one Member State is better or worse than that of another. That is a matter for political choice in each country and I know that every system will find supporters and critics. The truth lies, most of the time, in the middle. No single system has only advantages. Every system and every choice has downsides. Choices and preferences may also change. What is good now may not necessarily be so in five years’ time.
The subject being discussed today is not whether the social system of a country is under threat or whether that system is an example to others. The real issue for me is what we mean by an internal market. What do Article 49 of the Treaty and the freedom to provide services mean? What do Article 12 and the principle of non-discrimination mean?
No one has questioned the enormous benefits the internal market brings, the extra growth and the extra jobs it has created. We should not be afraid of the internal market. We should embrace it. We have a Union of 25 Member States. The world is not waiting for us to take advantage of the internal market we live in. Others will do it for us if we do not wake up. I will defend the rights laid down in the Treaty. I will continue to apply its provisions in an even-handed way. But if members of this House expect me to creep around quietly and not upset some Member States and some Members of the European Parliament, then I am afraid that they are going to be disappointed.
At the opening of the Brussels sitting earlier this month, reference was made to the fact that I had recently stated that the Scandinavian model of collective agreements was not compatible with the EC Treaty.
Those who know me will be very much aware that I have vigorously supported collective agreements in the Member State I know best. In my home country, I have been directly involved in more national partnership negotiations than any previous Irish Minister for Finance. In my time in that office, I was regarded, together with my Prime Minister, as the leading government defender of the
of Irish social partnership.
During a recent visit to a number of Member States, including Latvia and Sweden, the press asked me about the ongoing investigation in what is known as the Laval case. It is a case involving a Latvian construction company, Laval, that won a tender to build a school in Vaxholm in Sweden. As a result of a dispute on whether Laval had to sign up to the Swedish collective agreement and whether it had to pay the average Swedish wage in the construction sector, the Swedish construction trade union blocked the construction site. The action taken by the Swedish construction trade union eventually led Laval to terminate the contract and the company ultimately went bankrupt. The matter was brought before the Swedish Labour Court, which in turn referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
The fact that the Swedish Labour Court referred the matter to the European Court of Justice demonstrates that the legal situation is complicated. Whether the Swedish authorities and the trade union were right in how they handled this case will be determined by the Swedish Labour Court in the light of the ruling that will be given by the European Court of Justice.
The Commission will be invited to present its analysis of the situation and all the legal elements, including Article 49 of the Treaty on the freedom to provide services and the application of the posted workers directive. This analysis is complex and will take some time. The Commission has not yet formed a view on this. Those are the facts of the matter.
As to the broader question of how the Commission sees the development of the internal market and the European social model, let me stress that, for the Commission, the development of the internal market and the preservation of the European social model go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive; they reinforce each other. The internal market creates new opportunities for businesses, consumers and workers. This allows the preservation and further development of social rights, in accordance with the collective preferences of each individual Member State.
The Commission has an onerous duty in making sure that the basic rights and freedoms set down in the Treaty are respected throughout the Union. As guardian of the internal market, I exercise my responsibilities in an even-handed manner. To be credible, there is no alternative.
I find it extraordinary that I should have to justify remarks I made on an incident that raise questions about its compatibility with Article 49 of the Treaty. I was not the first to raise this question. It was the Swedish Labour court that asked whether there is incompatibility with Community law, in particular the posting of workers directive, Article 49 on the free movement of services and Article 12 on non-discrimination."@et5
".
Arvoisa puhemies, haluan vahvistaa, ettei komissio kyseenalaista Ruotsin tai minkään muunkaan jäsenvaltion työmarkkinasuhdejärjestelyjä tai työehtosopimusjärjestelmiä. Jäsenvaltiot saavat täysin itsenäisesti päättää työsuhdejärjestelyistä ja siitä, sisältyykö järjestelmään työehtosopimusneuvotteluja. Komissio myöntää, että monissa jäsenvaltioissa, jotka soveltavat näitä käytäntöjä, kollektiiviset työehtosopimukset ovat tärkeitä taloudellisten ja yhteiskunnallisten suhteiden vakauttamisen ja ennustettavuuden parantamisen kannalta.
Tämä sattuu olemaan niin sanotusti "arka" aihe eräälle jäsenvaltiolle. Ei kai pelkkä aiheen arkuus kuitenkaan riitä epäämään minulta oikeutta ilmaista mielipidettäni tai tehdä työtäni? Mielestäni komission on oltava puolueeton ja toimittava oikeudenmukaisesti. Aion jatkossakin ilmaista mielipiteeni avoimesti ja selkeästi. Minua ei haittaa, jos jotkut hermostuvat mielipiteistäni. Olen vakaasti sitä mieltä, että komission ensisijaisena tehtävänä on varmistaa perustamissopimuksessa asetettujen sääntöjen noudattaminen, ja aion tarmokkaasti puolustaa tätä tehtävää. Olen vannonut valan, joka velvoittaa minut tekemään niin.
Unionissa on 25 jäsenvaltiota. En näe niiden välillä minkäänlaista eroa. Vaikka Latvia onkin uusi jäsenvaltio ja yksi pienimmistä jäsenvaltioista, sen valitukset eivät lainkaan ole muita merkityksettömämpiä. Latvialaisten ammattiliittojen jäsenillä on aivan yhtä suuri oikeus saada tukea oikeuksilleen kuin ruotsalaistenkin ammattiliittojen jäsenillä.
Minä tai komissio emme kyseenalaista yhdenkään jäsenvaltion sosiaalista mallia tai sitä, millaisia työsuhdejärjestelyjä jäsenvaltioissa noudatetaan. Monimuotoisuus on yksi unionin vahvuuksista. Minulla on oma näkemykseni siitä, mikä on kannattavaa talouden kannalta. En ole koskaan peitellyt näitä mielipiteitäni. Lisäksi minulla on oma näkemykseni siitä, miten globalisaatiosta aiheutuviin haasteisiin ja mahdollisuuksiin olisi reagoitava. Muurien säilyttäminen ei ole mielestäni mahdollista, eikä kilpailun olemassaoloa voida kiistää tai kilpailua pitää rajojemme ulkopuolella.
En ole koskaan kuitenkaan sanonut, että kaikkien maiden talouksia voidaan hoitaa yhdellä ainoalla tavalla. Ei ole olemassa yhtä ainoata tapaa järjestää työsuhteita eikä ole olemassa yhtä ainoata sosiaalista mallia. Yhdessä maassa toimiva järjestelmä ei välttämättä sovi toiselle maalle. Tämän vuoksi en ota millään tavoin kantaa siihen, onko jossakin jäsenvaltiossa muita parempi tai huonompi sosiaalinen malli. Kukin maa tekee asiassa oman poliittisen valintansa, ja tiedän, että jokaisella järjestelmällä on puolustajansa ja arvostelijansa. Useimmiten totuus on jotakin siltä väliltä. Yhdelläkään järjestelmällä ei ole ainoastaan hyviä puolia. Jokaisella järjestelmällä ja valinnalla on huonot puolensa. Valinnat ja mieltymykset voivat myös vaihtua. Mikä vaikuttaa nyt hyvältä, ei ole sitä välttämättä viiden vuoden kuluttua.
Tänään emme keskustele siitä, onko jonkun maan sosiaalijärjestelmä uhattuna tai toimiiko tuo järjestelmä esimerkkinä muille maille. Mielestäni keskustelun todellisena aiheena on, mitä me tarkoitamme sisämarkkinoilla. Mitä perustamissopimuksen 49 artikla ja palvelujen vapaa tarjoaminen tarkoittavat? Mitä 12 artikla ja syrjimättömyyden periaate tarkoittavat?
Kukaan ei ole kyseenalaistanut sisämarkkinoista saatavia valtavia etuja, niiden synnyttämää lisäkasvua ja lisätyöpaikkoja. Sisämarkkinoita ei pidä pelätä. Ne olisi otettava avosylin vastaan. Meillä on 25 jäsenvaltion unioni. Maailma ei odota, että alamme hyödyntää muodostamiamme sisämarkkinoita. Muut tekevät sen puolestamme, jos emme itse havahdu hyödyntämään niitä. Aion puolustaa perustamissopimuksessa määrättyjä oikeuksia. Aion jatkossakin soveltaa perustamissopimuksen määräyksiä tasapuolisesti. Jos Euroopan parlamentin jäsenet olettavat minun pysyvän hiljaisena ja toimivan järkyttämättä joitakin jäsenvaltioita ja eräitä Euroopan parlamentin jäseniä, pelkäänpä, että he pettyvät.
Brysselissä aikaisemmin tässä kuussa pidetyn istunnon avajaiskeskustelussa minun kerrottiin aikaisemmin todenneen, että skandinaavinen työehtosopimusmalli ei ole EY:n perustamissopimuksen mukainen.
Ne, jotka minut tuntevat, tietävät varsin hyvin, että olen tarmokkaasti tukenut työehtosopimusten noudattamista parhaiten tuntemassani jäsenvaltiossa. Kotimaassani olin läsnä useammassa maani työmarkkinaosapuolten keskustelussa kuin yksikään Irlannin aikaisemmista valtiovarainministereistä. Toimiessani tuossa virassa minua pidettiin pääministerin rinnalla hallituksen yhtenä innokkaimpana irlantilaisen työmarkkinasopimusmallin puolustajana.
Vieraillessani äskettäin useissa jäsenvaltioissa, myös Latviassa ja Ruotsissa, toimittajat kysyivät minulta meneillään olevasta tutkimuksesta, eli asiasta Laval. Tapaus koskee latvialaista rakennusyritystä, joka voitti tarjouskilpailun koulun rakentamisesta Vaxholmiin Ruotsiin. Laval kieltäytyi allekirjoittamasta ruotsalaista työehtosopimusta ja maksamasta Ruotsin rakennusalan keskipalkkaa. Tämän jälkeen Ruotsin rakennusalan ammattiliitto asetti työmaalle työsulun. Ruotsin rakennusalan ammattiliiton toimien johdosta Laval lopulta purki sopimuksen. Lopputuloksena oli yhtiön ajautuminen konkurssiin. Asia saatettiin Ruotsin työvoimatuomioistuimen käsittelyyn, ja sieltä asiaan pyydettiin ennakkoratkaisua Euroopan yhteisöjen tuomioistuimelta.
Asian saattaminen Ruotsin työvoimatuomioistuimesta Euroopan yhteisöjen tuomioistuimen käsiteltäväksi on osoitus siitä, että oikeudellinen tilanne on monimutkainen. Euroopan yhteisöjen tuomioistuimen tuomio vaikuttaa siihen, katsooko Ruotsin työvoimatuomioistuin, että Ruotsin viranomaiset ja ammattiliitto toimivat asiassa oikein.
Komissiota pyydetään toimittamaan analyysi tilanteesta ja kaikista oikeudellisista näkökohdista, myös perustamissopimuksen 49 artiklasta palvelujen tarjoamisen vapauden osalta sekä lähetettyjä työntekijöitä koskevan direktiivin soveltamisesta. Analyysi on monimutkainen, ja sen laatiminen kestää jonkin aikaa. Komissiolla ei ole vielä kantaa asiasta. Näin asiat ovat.
Laajemmalti tässä on kysymys siitä, miten komissio katsoo sisämarkkinoiden ja Euroopan sosiaalisen mallin kehittyvän. Haluan tältä osin korostaa, että komission mielestä sisämarkkinoiden kehitys ja Euroopan sosiaalisen mallin säilyttäminen liittyvät tiiviisti yhteen. Ne eivät ole toisensa pois sulkevia. Sisämarkkinat tarjoavat uusia mahdollisuuksia yrityksille, kuluttajille ja työntekijöille. Tämä antaa mahdollisuuden säilyttää sosiaaliset oikeudet ja parantaa niitä kunkin jäsenvaltion kollektiivisten mieltymysten mukaisesti.
Komission työläänä tehtävänä on varmistaa, että perustamissopimuksessa määrättyjä perusoikeuksia ja -vapauksia noudatetaan kaikkialla unionissa. Sisämarkkinoista vastaavana komission jäsenenä noudatan velvollisuuksiani tasapuolisesti. Muut vaihtoehtoa ei ole, jos haluan säilyttää uskottavuuteni.
Mielestäni on hämmästyttävää, että minun olisi perusteltava kommenttejani, jotka koskevat mahdollisesti perustamissopimuksen 49 artiklaa rikkovaa tapausta. En ollut ensimmäinen, joka otti asian esille. Ruotsin työvoimatuomioistuin kysyi, rikotaanko asiassa yhteisön oikeutta, erityisesti lähetettyjä työntekijöitä koskevaa direktiiviä, palvelujen vapaata liikkuvuutta koskevaa 49 artiklaa ja syrjinnän kieltävää 12 artiklaa."@fi7
"Monsieur le Président, je confirme que la Commission ne remet aucunement en question l’organisation des relations de travail et le système des conventions collectives en Suède ou dans tout autre État membre. Il appartient entièrement à chaque État membre de déterminer la manière dont les relations de travail sont organisées et si son système inclut ou non des négociations collectives. La Commission reconnaît le rôle important des conventions collectives dans l’apport d’une stabilité et d’une prédictibilité des relations économiques et sociales dans les nombreux États membres qui recourent à ces méthodes.
Il se trouve que la question pose problème dans un État membre. Mais ce simple fait me prive-t-il de mon droit d’exprimer une opinion ou d’exercer ma responsabilité? Je crois en la nécessité d’une impartialité et d’une équité de la Commission dans l’exercice de ses fonctions. Je continuerai d’exprimer clairement mes opinions. Je me fiche de savoir que cela dérange certaines personnes. Je crois passionnément au rôle principal de la Commission qui est de garantir l’application des règles du traité CE et je suis prêt à défendre vigoureusement ce rôle. J’ai juré de le faire.
L’Union européenne compte 25 États membres. Je ne fais aucune distinction entre eux. Ce n’est pas parce que la Lettonie est un nouvel État membre et un des plus petits que ses plaintes sont moins importantes. Les syndicalistes lettons ont tout autant droit que les syndicalistes suédois à ce que leurs intérêts soient défendus.
Ni la Commission ni moi ne remettons en question le modèle social d’un État membre ou la manière dont cet État organise ses relations de travail. L’une des forces de l’Union est sa diversité. J’ai mon point de vue sur ce qui est bon pour l’économie. Je n’ai jamais caché ce point de vue. J’ai également mes opinions sur la manière d’aborder idéalement les défis et opportunités résultant de la mondialisation et je ne crois pas à la possibilité de maintenir des barrières et d’essayer de prétendre que la concurrence n’existe pas ou peut-être maintenue hors des frontières.
Toutefois, je n’ai jamais dit qu’il n’y avait qu’une seule méthode pour la gestion de toutes les économies. Il n’y a pas de formule unique pour l’organisation des relations de travail, pas plus qu’il n’y a de formule unique pour un modèle social. Ce qui fonctionne dans un pays peut ne pas fonctionner dans un autre. Je ne m’exprimerai donc pas sur la question de savoir si le modèle social d’un État membre est meilleur ou pire que celui d’un autre. C’est une question de choix politique dans chaque pays et je sais que chaque système a ses partisans et ses opposants. La plupart du temps, la vérité est quelque part au milieu. Aucun système n’a que des avantages. Tout système et tout choix présentent des inconvénients. Les choix et les préférences peuvent également changer. Ce qui est bien aujourd’hui ne le sera plus nécessairement dans cinq ans.
Le sujet de notre débat n’est pas de déterminer si le système social d’un pays est menacé ou s’il s’agit d’un modèle pour les autres pays. Pour moi, la véritable question est de savoir ce que recouvre la notion de marché intérieur. Que signifient l’article 49 du traité CE et la libre prestation de services? Que signifient l’article 12 et le principe de non-discrimination?
Personne n’a mis en doute les énormes bénéfices qu’apporte le marché intérieur, dont la croissance et la création d’emplois qu’il a généré. Il ne faut pas avoir peur du marché intérieur. Il faut au contraire l’embrasser. Nous avons une Union de 25 États membres. Le monde ne nous attend pas pour tirer profit du marché intérieur dans lequel nous vivons. Si nous ne nous réveillons pas, d’autres le feront à notre place. Je défendrai toujours les droits inscrits dans le traité CE. Je continuerai d’appliquer ses dispositions de manière impartiale. Mais si certains membres de cette Assemblée attendent de moi que je rampe en silence et que je ne dérange pas certains États membres et certains députés européens, ils vont être déçus, je le crains.
Lors de l’ouverture de la séance du début du mois à Bruxelles, il a été mentionné que j’avais récemment déclaré que le modèle scandinave de conventions collectives n’était pas compatible avec le traité CE.
Ceux qui me connaissent savent très bien que j’ai soutenu avec vigueur les conventions collectives dans l’État membre que je connais le mieux. Dans mon pays, j’ai été directement impliqué dans plus de négociations partenariales que n’importe quel précédent ministre irlandais des finances. À l’époque où j’occupais cette fonction, j’étais considéré, avec mon Premier ministre, comme le principal défenseur gouvernemental du modèle de partenariat social irlandais.
Lors d’une récente visite dans plusieurs États membres, dont la Lettonie et la Suède, la presse m’a interrogé sur l’enquête en cours dans l’affaire Laval. Cette affaire implique une société de construction lettone, Laval, qui a remporté un contrat portant sur la construction d’une école à Vaxholm, en Suède. À la suite d’un conflit sur la question de savoir si Laval devait souscrire à la convention collective suédoise et appliquer le salaire suédois moyen fixé pour le secteur de la construction, le syndicat suédois du bâtiment avait bloqué l’accès au site. L’action du syndicat a conduit à la résiliation du contrat et, au bout du compte, à la faillite de la société Laval. L’affaire a été portée devant le tribunal du travail suédois, lequel a ensuite renvoyé l’affaire devant la Cour de justice des Communautés européenne en demandant une décision à titre préjudiciel.
Le renvoi de l’affaire devant la Cour de justice par le tribunal du travail suédois démontre la complexité de la situation juridique. Le tribunal du travail suédois déterminera si les autorités suédoises et le syndicat ont agi à bon droit dans cette affaire à la lumière de la décision rendue par la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes.
La Commission sera invitée à présenter son analyse de la situation et de tous les éléments juridiques, y compris l’article 49 du traité relatif à la libre prestation de services et l’application de la directive sur le détachement de travailleurs. Cette analyse est complexe et prendra un certain temps. La Commission ne s’est pas encore forgé une opinion à ce sujet. Tels sont les faits concernant l’affaire.
Quant à la question plus large portant sur la vision de la Commission par rapport au développement du marché intérieur et au modèle social européen, permettez-moi de souligner que, pour la Commission, le développement du marché intérieur et la protection du modèle social européen vont de pair. Ces deux éléments ne s’excluent pas mutuellement. Ils se renforcent mutuellement. Le marché intérieur crée de nouvelles possibilités pour les entreprises, les consommateurs et les travailleurs. Cela permet de maintenir et de développer les droits sociaux, conformément aux préférences collectives de chaque État membre.
La Commission a la lourde responsabilité de s’assurer du respect, dans l’ensemble de l’Union, des libertés et des droits fondamentaux inscrits dans le traité CE. En tant que gardien du marché intérieur, j’exerce mes responsabilités de manière impartiale. Pour être crédible, il n’y a pas d’autre choix.
Il me paraît extraordinaire que je doive justifier mes commentaires sur un incident qui soulève des questions quant à sa compatibilité avec l’article 49 du traité CE. Je n’ai pas été le premier à soulever cette question. C’est le tribunal du travail suédois qui a demandé s’il y avait incompatibilité avec le droit communautaire et en particulier avec la directive sur le détachement de travailleurs, l’article 49 relatif à la libre circulation des services et l’article 12 relatif à l’interdiction de toute discrimination."@fr8
"Mr President, let me confirm that the Commission does not call into question the organisation of labour relations and the system of collective agreements in Sweden or indeed any other Member State. It is entirely a matter for each Member State to determine how labour relations are organised and whether or not its system includes collective bargaining. The Commission recognises the important role that collective agreements play in bringing stability and predictability to economic and social relations in the many Member States that utilise these methods.
This happens to be a ‘sensitive’ issue in a Member State. But does the mere fact that an issue is sensitive deprive me of my right to express a view or carry out my duty? I believe in the necessity for the Commission to be impartial and fair in the exercise of its duties. I will continue to voice my opinions loud and clear. I do not care if it means upsetting some people. I passionately believe in the primary role of the Commission to ensure the rules of the Treaty are applied and I will vigorously defend that role. I have sworn to do so.
There are 25 Member States in the Union. I make no distinction between them. Just because Latvia is a new Member State and one of the smallest, that does not mean its complaints are less important. Latvian trade union members are entitled to have their interests defended as much as Swedish trade union members.
Neither I nor the Commission call into question the social model of any Member State or the way in which it organises labour relations. One of the strengths of the Union is its diversity. I have my views about what is good for the economy. I have never hidden these views. I also have my views about how the challenges and opportunities arising from globalisation should be addressed and I do not believe it is an option to maintain barriers and try to pretend that competition does not exist, or can be kept outside the borders.
However, I have never said that there is a single recipe for running every economy. There is no single recipe for organising labour relations and there is no single recipe for a social model. What works in one country might not work for another. I will therefore not express any view on whether the social model of one Member State is better or worse than that of another. That is a matter for political choice in each country and I know that every system will find supporters and critics. The truth lies, most of the time, in the middle. No single system has only advantages. Every system and every choice has downsides. Choices and preferences may also change. What is good now may not necessarily be so in five years’ time.
The subject being discussed today is not whether the social system of a country is under threat or whether that system is an example to others. The real issue for me is what we mean by an internal market. What do Article 49 of the Treaty and the freedom to provide services mean? What do Article 12 and the principle of non-discrimination mean?
No one has questioned the enormous benefits the internal market brings, the extra growth and the extra jobs it has created. We should not be afraid of the internal market. We should embrace it. We have a Union of 25 Member States. The world is not waiting for us to take advantage of the internal market we live in. Others will do it for us if we do not wake up. I will defend the rights laid down in the Treaty. I will continue to apply its provisions in an even-handed way. But if members of this House expect me to creep around quietly and not upset some Member States and some Members of the European Parliament, then I am afraid that they are going to be disappointed.
At the opening of the Brussels sitting earlier this month, reference was made to the fact that I had recently stated that the Scandinavian model of collective agreements was not compatible with the EC Treaty.
Those who know me will be very much aware that I have vigorously supported collective agreements in the Member State I know best. In my home country, I have been directly involved in more national partnership negotiations than any previous Irish Minister for Finance. In my time in that office, I was regarded, together with my Prime Minister, as the leading government defender of the
of Irish social partnership.
During a recent visit to a number of Member States, including Latvia and Sweden, the press asked me about the ongoing investigation in what is known as the Laval case. It is a case involving a Latvian construction company, Laval, that won a tender to build a school in Vaxholm in Sweden. As a result of a dispute on whether Laval had to sign up to the Swedish collective agreement and whether it had to pay the average Swedish wage in the construction sector, the Swedish construction trade union blocked the construction site. The action taken by the Swedish construction trade union eventually led Laval to terminate the contract and the company ultimately went bankrupt. The matter was brought before the Swedish Labour Court, which in turn referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
The fact that the Swedish Labour Court referred the matter to the European Court of Justice demonstrates that the legal situation is complicated. Whether the Swedish authorities and the trade union were right in how they handled this case will be determined by the Swedish Labour Court in the light of the ruling that will be given by the European Court of Justice.
The Commission will be invited to present its analysis of the situation and all the legal elements, including Article 49 of the Treaty on the freedom to provide services and the application of the posted workers directive. This analysis is complex and will take some time. The Commission has not yet formed a view on this. Those are the facts of the matter.
As to the broader question of how the Commission sees the development of the internal market and the European social model, let me stress that, for the Commission, the development of the internal market and the preservation of the European social model go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive; they reinforce each other. The internal market creates new opportunities for businesses, consumers and workers. This allows the preservation and further development of social rights, in accordance with the collective preferences of each individual Member State.
The Commission has an onerous duty in making sure that the basic rights and freedoms set down in the Treaty are respected throughout the Union. As guardian of the internal market, I exercise my responsibilities in an even-handed manner. To be credible, there is no alternative.
I find it extraordinary that I should have to justify remarks I made on an incident that raise questions about its compatibility with Article 49 of the Treaty. I was not the first to raise this question. It was the Swedish Labour court that asked whether there is incompatibility with Community law, in particular the posting of workers directive, Article 49 on the free movement of services and Article 12 on non-discrimination."@hu11
"Signor Presidente, confermo che la Commissione non mette in dubbio l’organizzazione dei rapporti di lavoro e il sistema dei contratti collettivi, né in Svezia né in alcun altro Stato membro. Spetta unicamente al singolo Stato membro decidere come organizzare i rapporti di lavoro e se il sistema adottato debba prevedere la contrattazione collettiva oppure no. La Commissione riconosce l’importante ruolo svolto dai contratti collettivi nel portare stabilità e prevedibilità alle relazioni economiche e sociali dei molti Stati membri che utilizzano questi metodi.
In un determinato Stato membro tale questione può essere “sensibile”, ma ciò mi priva forse del diritto di esprimere un’opinione o di svolgere il mio dovere? Credo che la Commissione debba essere equa e imparziale nell’esercizio del proprio mandato. Continuerò a esprimere le mie opinioni in maniera forte e chiara, anche se ciò significa contrariare alcune persone. Credo fermamente nel ruolo fondamentale che la Commissione svolge per garantire l’applicazione delle norme del Trattato, e lo difenderò con forza. Ho giurato di farlo.
Ci sono 25 Stati membri nell’Unione, tra cui non faccio distinzioni. Solo perché la Lettonia è un nuovo Stato membro e uno dei più piccoli, non significa che le sue rimostranze siano meno importanti. I membri del sindacato lettone hanno il diritto alla difesa dei propri interessi tanto quanto i membri del sindacato svedese.
Né io né la Commissione mettiamo in dubbio il modello sociale di uno Stato membro o il modo in cui esso organizza i propri rapporti di lavoro. Uno dei punti forti dell’Unione è la sua diversità. Ho le mie opinioni su ciò che è giusto per l’economia, e non le ho mai nascoste. Ho anche un’opinione sul modo in cui si debbano affrontare le sfide e le opportunità derivanti dalla globalizzazione, e non credo sia possibile continuare a mantenere ostacoli e fingere che la concorrenza non esista, o che possa essere tenuta fuori dai confini.
Non ho mai detto, tuttavia, che esiste un’unica ricetta per gestire ogni economia. Non c’è un’unica ricetta per organizzare i rapporti di lavoro, e neppure per un modello sociale. Ciò che funziona in un paese potrebbe non funzionare in un altro. Non esprimerò, quindi, alcun parere sul fatto che il modello sociale di uno Stato membro sia migliore o peggiore di quello di un altro: è un problema di scelta politica del singolo paese, e so che ogni sistema troverà critiche e approvazioni. La verità sta, normalmente, nel mezzo. Nessun sistema ha solamente vantaggi; tutti i sistemi e le scelte hanno lati negativi. Le scelte e le preferenze possono anche cambiare. Quello che ora va bene potrebbe non andare bene tra cinque anni.
Oggi non ci stiamo chiedendo se il sistema sociale di un paese sia minacciato o se invece sia di esempio agli altri. La domanda che ci poniamo, per me, è questa: cosa intendiamo per mercato interno? Qual è il significato dell’articolo 49 del Trattato e della libera di prestazione dei servizi? Qual è il significato dell’articolo 12 e del principio di non discriminazione?
Nessuno ha messo in dubbio gli enormi vantaggi del mercato interno, la crescita addizionale e i posti di lavoro supplementari da esso creati. Non dobbiamo temere il mercato interno, ma coglierne le opportunità. Abbiamo un’Unione di 25 Stati membri. Il mondo non aspetterà di vedere se sfrutteremo il mercato interno in cui viviamo: altri lo faranno per noi se non apriremo gli occhi. Difenderò i diritti sanciti nel Trattato e continuerò ad applicarne le disposizioni in maniera imparziale, ma se i membri di quest’Assemblea si aspettano che io rimanga tranquillo per non urtare la suscettibilità di qualche Stato membro o di alcuni deputati al Parlamento europeo, temo che rimarranno delusi.
All’apertura della tornata di Bruxelles di inizio mese si è fatto allusione alle mie recenti affermazioni sull’incompatibilità del modello scandinavo dei contratti collettivi con il Trattato CE.
Chi mi conosce sa molto bene che ho sostenuto con forza i contratti collettivi nello Stato membro che meglio conosco. Nel mio paese natale ho partecipato personalmente a più negoziati sul partenariato nazionale di qualsiasi altro precedente ministro delle Finanze irlandese. Nel periodo in cui ricoprivo quella carica ero considerato, insieme al Primo Ministro, il più strenuo difensore di governo del
di partenariato sociale irlandese.
Durante una recente visita in alcuni Stati membri, tra cui Svezia e Lettonia, la stampa mi ha rivolto alcune domande sulle indagini in corso per il cosiddetto caso
. Il caso coinvolge un’impresa di costruzioni lettone, la
che ha vinto una gara d’appalto per la costruzione di una scuola a Vaxholm, in Svezia. Dopo un contenzioso sul presunto obbligo della
ad aderire al contratto collettivo svedese e a pagare il salario medio svedese previsto per il settore edile, il sindacato svedese degli edili ha bloccato il cantiere. L’azione sindacale ha portatola
a rescindere il contratto; l’impresa alla fine è fallita. Il caso è stato portato dinanzi al Tribunale del lavoro svedese che, a sua volta, lo ha deferito alla Corte di giustizia delle Comunità europee per una sentenza pregiudiziale.
Il fatto che il Tribunale del lavoro svedese abbia rimesso il caso alla Corte di giustizia dimostra quanto sia complicata la situazione giuridica. In base alla sentenza emessa dalla Corte di giustizia delle Comunità europee, il Tribunale del lavoro svedese deciderà se il sindacato e le autorità svedesi hanno gestito il caso nella maniera adeguata.
La Commissione sarà chiamata a presentare un’analisi della situazione e di tutti gli elementi giuridici, ivi compresi l’articolo 49 del Trattato sulla libertà di prestazione dei servizi e l’applicazione della direttiva sul distacco dei lavoratori. Si tratta di un’analisi complessa che richiederà un certo periodo di tempo. La Commissione non ha ancora un parere al riguardo. Questi sono i fatti inerenti al caso.
Per quanto riguarda la più ampia questione del parere della Commissione sullo sviluppo del mercato interno e sul modello sociale europeo, permettetemi di sottolineare che, per la Commissione, lo sviluppo del mercato interno e la difesa del modello sociale europeo vanno di pari passo. Non si escludono a vicenda, ma si rafforzano reciprocamente. Il mercato interno crea nuove opportunità per le imprese, i consumatori e i lavoratori. Ciò consente di tutelare e sviluppare ulteriormente i diritti sociali, in conformità delle preferenze collettive di ogni singolo Stato membro.
La Commissione ha l’onere di garantire, in tutta l’Unione europea, il rispetto dei diritti e delle libertà fondamentali sanciti nel Trattato. In qualità di custode del mercato interno, esercito il mio mandato in maniera imparziale. Non c’è alternativa se si vuole essere credibili.
Non comprendo perché io debba giustificare il fatto di aver messo in dubbio la compatibilità di questo episodio con l’articolo 49 del Trattato. Non sono stato il primo ad affrontare la questione. E’ stato il Tribunale del lavoro svedese a chiedere se ci fosse incompatibilità con il diritto comunitario e, in particolare, con la direttiva sul distacco dei lavoratori, l’articolo 49 sulla libera circolazione dei servizi e l’articolo 12 sulla non discriminazione."@it12
"Mr President, let me confirm that the Commission does not call into question the organisation of labour relations and the system of collective agreements in Sweden or indeed any other Member State. It is entirely a matter for each Member State to determine how labour relations are organised and whether or not its system includes collective bargaining. The Commission recognises the important role that collective agreements play in bringing stability and predictability to economic and social relations in the many Member States that utilise these methods.
This happens to be a ‘sensitive’ issue in a Member State. But does the mere fact that an issue is sensitive deprive me of my right to express a view or carry out my duty? I believe in the necessity for the Commission to be impartial and fair in the exercise of its duties. I will continue to voice my opinions loud and clear. I do not care if it means upsetting some people. I passionately believe in the primary role of the Commission to ensure the rules of the Treaty are applied and I will vigorously defend that role. I have sworn to do so.
There are 25 Member States in the Union. I make no distinction between them. Just because Latvia is a new Member State and one of the smallest, that does not mean its complaints are less important. Latvian trade union members are entitled to have their interests defended as much as Swedish trade union members.
Neither I nor the Commission call into question the social model of any Member State or the way in which it organises labour relations. One of the strengths of the Union is its diversity. I have my views about what is good for the economy. I have never hidden these views. I also have my views about how the challenges and opportunities arising from globalisation should be addressed and I do not believe it is an option to maintain barriers and try to pretend that competition does not exist, or can be kept outside the borders.
However, I have never said that there is a single recipe for running every economy. There is no single recipe for organising labour relations and there is no single recipe for a social model. What works in one country might not work for another. I will therefore not express any view on whether the social model of one Member State is better or worse than that of another. That is a matter for political choice in each country and I know that every system will find supporters and critics. The truth lies, most of the time, in the middle. No single system has only advantages. Every system and every choice has downsides. Choices and preferences may also change. What is good now may not necessarily be so in five years’ time.
The subject being discussed today is not whether the social system of a country is under threat or whether that system is an example to others. The real issue for me is what we mean by an internal market. What do Article 49 of the Treaty and the freedom to provide services mean? What do Article 12 and the principle of non-discrimination mean?
No one has questioned the enormous benefits the internal market brings, the extra growth and the extra jobs it has created. We should not be afraid of the internal market. We should embrace it. We have a Union of 25 Member States. The world is not waiting for us to take advantage of the internal market we live in. Others will do it for us if we do not wake up. I will defend the rights laid down in the Treaty. I will continue to apply its provisions in an even-handed way. But if members of this House expect me to creep around quietly and not upset some Member States and some Members of the European Parliament, then I am afraid that they are going to be disappointed.
At the opening of the Brussels sitting earlier this month, reference was made to the fact that I had recently stated that the Scandinavian model of collective agreements was not compatible with the EC Treaty.
Those who know me will be very much aware that I have vigorously supported collective agreements in the Member State I know best. In my home country, I have been directly involved in more national partnership negotiations than any previous Irish Minister for Finance. In my time in that office, I was regarded, together with my Prime Minister, as the leading government defender of the
of Irish social partnership.
During a recent visit to a number of Member States, including Latvia and Sweden, the press asked me about the ongoing investigation in what is known as the Laval case. It is a case involving a Latvian construction company, Laval, that won a tender to build a school in Vaxholm in Sweden. As a result of a dispute on whether Laval had to sign up to the Swedish collective agreement and whether it had to pay the average Swedish wage in the construction sector, the Swedish construction trade union blocked the construction site. The action taken by the Swedish construction trade union eventually led Laval to terminate the contract and the company ultimately went bankrupt. The matter was brought before the Swedish Labour Court, which in turn referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
The fact that the Swedish Labour Court referred the matter to the European Court of Justice demonstrates that the legal situation is complicated. Whether the Swedish authorities and the trade union were right in how they handled this case will be determined by the Swedish Labour Court in the light of the ruling that will be given by the European Court of Justice.
The Commission will be invited to present its analysis of the situation and all the legal elements, including Article 49 of the Treaty on the freedom to provide services and the application of the posted workers directive. This analysis is complex and will take some time. The Commission has not yet formed a view on this. Those are the facts of the matter.
As to the broader question of how the Commission sees the development of the internal market and the European social model, let me stress that, for the Commission, the development of the internal market and the preservation of the European social model go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive; they reinforce each other. The internal market creates new opportunities for businesses, consumers and workers. This allows the preservation and further development of social rights, in accordance with the collective preferences of each individual Member State.
The Commission has an onerous duty in making sure that the basic rights and freedoms set down in the Treaty are respected throughout the Union. As guardian of the internal market, I exercise my responsibilities in an even-handed manner. To be credible, there is no alternative.
I find it extraordinary that I should have to justify remarks I made on an incident that raise questions about its compatibility with Article 49 of the Treaty. I was not the first to raise this question. It was the Swedish Labour court that asked whether there is incompatibility with Community law, in particular the posting of workers directive, Article 49 on the free movement of services and Article 12 on non-discrimination."@lt14
"Mr President, let me confirm that the Commission does not call into question the organisation of labour relations and the system of collective agreements in Sweden or indeed any other Member State. It is entirely a matter for each Member State to determine how labour relations are organised and whether or not its system includes collective bargaining. The Commission recognises the important role that collective agreements play in bringing stability and predictability to economic and social relations in the many Member States that utilise these methods.
This happens to be a ‘sensitive’ issue in a Member State. But does the mere fact that an issue is sensitive deprive me of my right to express a view or carry out my duty? I believe in the necessity for the Commission to be impartial and fair in the exercise of its duties. I will continue to voice my opinions loud and clear. I do not care if it means upsetting some people. I passionately believe in the primary role of the Commission to ensure the rules of the Treaty are applied and I will vigorously defend that role. I have sworn to do so.
There are 25 Member States in the Union. I make no distinction between them. Just because Latvia is a new Member State and one of the smallest, that does not mean its complaints are less important. Latvian trade union members are entitled to have their interests defended as much as Swedish trade union members.
Neither I nor the Commission call into question the social model of any Member State or the way in which it organises labour relations. One of the strengths of the Union is its diversity. I have my views about what is good for the economy. I have never hidden these views. I also have my views about how the challenges and opportunities arising from globalisation should be addressed and I do not believe it is an option to maintain barriers and try to pretend that competition does not exist, or can be kept outside the borders.
However, I have never said that there is a single recipe for running every economy. There is no single recipe for organising labour relations and there is no single recipe for a social model. What works in one country might not work for another. I will therefore not express any view on whether the social model of one Member State is better or worse than that of another. That is a matter for political choice in each country and I know that every system will find supporters and critics. The truth lies, most of the time, in the middle. No single system has only advantages. Every system and every choice has downsides. Choices and preferences may also change. What is good now may not necessarily be so in five years’ time.
The subject being discussed today is not whether the social system of a country is under threat or whether that system is an example to others. The real issue for me is what we mean by an internal market. What do Article 49 of the Treaty and the freedom to provide services mean? What do Article 12 and the principle of non-discrimination mean?
No one has questioned the enormous benefits the internal market brings, the extra growth and the extra jobs it has created. We should not be afraid of the internal market. We should embrace it. We have a Union of 25 Member States. The world is not waiting for us to take advantage of the internal market we live in. Others will do it for us if we do not wake up. I will defend the rights laid down in the Treaty. I will continue to apply its provisions in an even-handed way. But if members of this House expect me to creep around quietly and not upset some Member States and some Members of the European Parliament, then I am afraid that they are going to be disappointed.
At the opening of the Brussels sitting earlier this month, reference was made to the fact that I had recently stated that the Scandinavian model of collective agreements was not compatible with the EC Treaty.
Those who know me will be very much aware that I have vigorously supported collective agreements in the Member State I know best. In my home country, I have been directly involved in more national partnership negotiations than any previous Irish Minister for Finance. In my time in that office, I was regarded, together with my Prime Minister, as the leading government defender of the
of Irish social partnership.
During a recent visit to a number of Member States, including Latvia and Sweden, the press asked me about the ongoing investigation in what is known as the Laval case. It is a case involving a Latvian construction company, Laval, that won a tender to build a school in Vaxholm in Sweden. As a result of a dispute on whether Laval had to sign up to the Swedish collective agreement and whether it had to pay the average Swedish wage in the construction sector, the Swedish construction trade union blocked the construction site. The action taken by the Swedish construction trade union eventually led Laval to terminate the contract and the company ultimately went bankrupt. The matter was brought before the Swedish Labour Court, which in turn referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
The fact that the Swedish Labour Court referred the matter to the European Court of Justice demonstrates that the legal situation is complicated. Whether the Swedish authorities and the trade union were right in how they handled this case will be determined by the Swedish Labour Court in the light of the ruling that will be given by the European Court of Justice.
The Commission will be invited to present its analysis of the situation and all the legal elements, including Article 49 of the Treaty on the freedom to provide services and the application of the posted workers directive. This analysis is complex and will take some time. The Commission has not yet formed a view on this. Those are the facts of the matter.
As to the broader question of how the Commission sees the development of the internal market and the European social model, let me stress that, for the Commission, the development of the internal market and the preservation of the European social model go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive; they reinforce each other. The internal market creates new opportunities for businesses, consumers and workers. This allows the preservation and further development of social rights, in accordance with the collective preferences of each individual Member State.
The Commission has an onerous duty in making sure that the basic rights and freedoms set down in the Treaty are respected throughout the Union. As guardian of the internal market, I exercise my responsibilities in an even-handed manner. To be credible, there is no alternative.
I find it extraordinary that I should have to justify remarks I made on an incident that raise questions about its compatibility with Article 49 of the Treaty. I was not the first to raise this question. It was the Swedish Labour court that asked whether there is incompatibility with Community law, in particular the posting of workers directive, Article 49 on the free movement of services and Article 12 on non-discrimination."@lv13
"Mr President, let me confirm that the Commission does not call into question the organisation of labour relations and the system of collective agreements in Sweden or indeed any other Member State. It is entirely a matter for each Member State to determine how labour relations are organised and whether or not its system includes collective bargaining. The Commission recognises the important role that collective agreements play in bringing stability and predictability to economic and social relations in the many Member States that utilise these methods.
This happens to be a ‘sensitive’ issue in a Member State. But does the mere fact that an issue is sensitive deprive me of my right to express a view or carry out my duty? I believe in the necessity for the Commission to be impartial and fair in the exercise of its duties. I will continue to voice my opinions loud and clear. I do not care if it means upsetting some people. I passionately believe in the primary role of the Commission to ensure the rules of the Treaty are applied and I will vigorously defend that role. I have sworn to do so.
There are 25 Member States in the Union. I make no distinction between them. Just because Latvia is a new Member State and one of the smallest, that does not mean its complaints are less important. Latvian trade union members are entitled to have their interests defended as much as Swedish trade union members.
Neither I nor the Commission call into question the social model of any Member State or the way in which it organises labour relations. One of the strengths of the Union is its diversity. I have my views about what is good for the economy. I have never hidden these views. I also have my views about how the challenges and opportunities arising from globalisation should be addressed and I do not believe it is an option to maintain barriers and try to pretend that competition does not exist, or can be kept outside the borders.
However, I have never said that there is a single recipe for running every economy. There is no single recipe for organising labour relations and there is no single recipe for a social model. What works in one country might not work for another. I will therefore not express any view on whether the social model of one Member State is better or worse than that of another. That is a matter for political choice in each country and I know that every system will find supporters and critics. The truth lies, most of the time, in the middle. No single system has only advantages. Every system and every choice has downsides. Choices and preferences may also change. What is good now may not necessarily be so in five years’ time.
The subject being discussed today is not whether the social system of a country is under threat or whether that system is an example to others. The real issue for me is what we mean by an internal market. What do Article 49 of the Treaty and the freedom to provide services mean? What do Article 12 and the principle of non-discrimination mean?
No one has questioned the enormous benefits the internal market brings, the extra growth and the extra jobs it has created. We should not be afraid of the internal market. We should embrace it. We have a Union of 25 Member States. The world is not waiting for us to take advantage of the internal market we live in. Others will do it for us if we do not wake up. I will defend the rights laid down in the Treaty. I will continue to apply its provisions in an even-handed way. But if members of this House expect me to creep around quietly and not upset some Member States and some Members of the European Parliament, then I am afraid that they are going to be disappointed.
At the opening of the Brussels sitting earlier this month, reference was made to the fact that I had recently stated that the Scandinavian model of collective agreements was not compatible with the EC Treaty.
Those who know me will be very much aware that I have vigorously supported collective agreements in the Member State I know best. In my home country, I have been directly involved in more national partnership negotiations than any previous Irish Minister for Finance. In my time in that office, I was regarded, together with my Prime Minister, as the leading government defender of the
of Irish social partnership.
During a recent visit to a number of Member States, including Latvia and Sweden, the press asked me about the ongoing investigation in what is known as the Laval case. It is a case involving a Latvian construction company, Laval, that won a tender to build a school in Vaxholm in Sweden. As a result of a dispute on whether Laval had to sign up to the Swedish collective agreement and whether it had to pay the average Swedish wage in the construction sector, the Swedish construction trade union blocked the construction site. The action taken by the Swedish construction trade union eventually led Laval to terminate the contract and the company ultimately went bankrupt. The matter was brought before the Swedish Labour Court, which in turn referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
The fact that the Swedish Labour Court referred the matter to the European Court of Justice demonstrates that the legal situation is complicated. Whether the Swedish authorities and the trade union were right in how they handled this case will be determined by the Swedish Labour Court in the light of the ruling that will be given by the European Court of Justice.
The Commission will be invited to present its analysis of the situation and all the legal elements, including Article 49 of the Treaty on the freedom to provide services and the application of the posted workers directive. This analysis is complex and will take some time. The Commission has not yet formed a view on this. Those are the facts of the matter.
As to the broader question of how the Commission sees the development of the internal market and the European social model, let me stress that, for the Commission, the development of the internal market and the preservation of the European social model go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive; they reinforce each other. The internal market creates new opportunities for businesses, consumers and workers. This allows the preservation and further development of social rights, in accordance with the collective preferences of each individual Member State.
The Commission has an onerous duty in making sure that the basic rights and freedoms set down in the Treaty are respected throughout the Union. As guardian of the internal market, I exercise my responsibilities in an even-handed manner. To be credible, there is no alternative.
I find it extraordinary that I should have to justify remarks I made on an incident that raise questions about its compatibility with Article 49 of the Treaty. I was not the first to raise this question. It was the Swedish Labour court that asked whether there is incompatibility with Community law, in particular the posting of workers directive, Article 49 on the free movement of services and Article 12 on non-discrimination."@mt15
".
Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik bevestig dat de Commissie de organisatie van de arbeidsverhoudingen en het systeem van collectieve arbeidsovereenkomsten in Zweden, of in welke andere lidstaat dan ook, niet in twijfel trekt. Elke lidstaat bepaalt geheel zelfstandig hoe de arbeidsverhoudingen worden georganiseerd en of daarin ruimte is voor collectieve onderhandelingen. De Commissie erkent de vitale rol die collectieve onderhandelingen vervullen bij het creëren van stabiele en voorspelbare economische en sociale verhoudingen in de vele lidstaten waarin van deze methode gebruik wordt gemaakt.
Het gaat hier om een "heet hangijzer" in een lidstaat. Maar berooft het feit dat het een heet hangijzer betreft, mij van het recht een mening te uiten of mijn plicht te doen? Ik ben van mening dat de Commissie haar taken op een onpartijdige en rechtvaardige manier moet kunnen vervullen. Ik zal mijn standpunten luid en duidelijk blijven verkondigen. Het kan me niet schelen dat dat misschien betekent dat ik daarmee bepaalde mensen voor het hoofd stoot. Ik geloof vurig in de primaire rol van de Commissie die erin bestaat toepassing van de bepalingen van het Verdrag te waarborgen en ik zal die rol met verve verdedigen. Ik heb gezworen dat te doen.
De Unie heeft 25 lidstaten. Ik maak geen onderscheid tussen hen. Het feit dat Letland pas recentelijk is toegetreden en een van de kleinste lidstaten is, betekent niet dat klachten van dit land minder belangrijk zijn. Leden van Letse vakbonden hebben er net zo veel recht op dat hun belangen worden verdedigd als Zweedse vakbondsleden.
Net zo min als de Commissie trek ik het sociale model of de organisatie van de arbeidsverhoudingen van welke lidstaat dan ook in twijfel. Een van de sterke punten van de Unie is haar verscheidenheid. Ik heb mijn meningen over wat goed is voor de economie. Ik heb daar nooit een geheim van gemaakt. Ik heb ook mijn meningen over de wijze waarop de uitdagingen en mogelijkheden die voortvloeien uit de globalisering moeten worden aangepakt. Ik vind het geen optie barrières in stand te houden en te doen alsof concurrentie niet bestaat of buiten de deur kan worden gehouden.
Ik heb echter nooit beweerd dat er slechts één recept is voor het runnen van welke economie dan ook. Er is niet één recept voor de organisatie van arbeidsverhoudingen of voor een sociaal model. Wat in het ene land werkt, kan in het andere land onuitvoerbaar blijken. Van mij zult u dus niet horen dat het sociaal model van de ene lidstaat beter of slechter is dan dat van de andere. Dat is een kwestie van het maken van politieke keuzen, keuzen die elk land zelf maakt, en ik weet dat elk systeem zijn voor- en tegenstanders heeft. De waarheid ligt gewoonlijk in het midden. Er bestaat geen systeem met enkel voordelen. Elk systeem en elke keuze bergen nadelen in zich. Daarnaast kunnen keuzen en voorkeuren veranderen. Wat nu goed is, is dat over vijf jaar misschien niet meer.
Het gaat in dit debat niet om de vraag of het sociaal model van een land bedreigd wordt dan wel tot voorbeeld strekt. Het gaat er mij om wat we bedoelen met een interne markt. Wat houden artikel 49 van het Verdrag en een vrije dienstverlening eigenlijk in? Wat hebben artikel 12 en het beginsel van non-discriminatie te betekenen?
Niemand heeft de enorme voordelen van de interne markt alsmede de extra groei en de extra banen die de interne markt heeft gecreëerd in twijfel getrokken. We moeten de interne markt niet angstvallig uit de weg gaan, maar juist omarmen. We hebben een Unie van 25 lidstaten. De wereld wacht niet af totdat we de voordelen van de interne markt waarin we leven aangrijpen. Anderen zullen ons voor zijn als we niet wakker worden. Ik zal de rechten die in het Verdrag zijn neergelegd verdedigen. Ik zal de bepalingen van het Verdrag op een onpartijdige wijze toepassen. Maar als afgevaardigden in dit Huis van mij verlangen dat ik op kousenvoeten zal lopen om te voorkomen dat ik lidstaten en bepaalde afgevaardigden van het Parlement voor het hoofd stoot, ben ik bang dat ik ze moet teleurstellen.
Bij de opening van de vergadering in Brussel eerder deze maand is melding gemaakt van mijn verklaring van onlangs dat het Scandinavische model van collectieve onderhandelingen niet verenigbaar is met het EG-Verdrag.
Zij die mij kennen, weten maar al te goed dat ik mij altijd vierkant heb opgesteld achter de collectieve onderhandelingen in de lidstaat die ik het beste ken: mijn eigen land. Ik ben direct betrokken geweest bij meer nationale partnerschapsonderhandelingen dan enig andere Ierse minister van Financiën. Toen ik dat ambt bekleedde, werd ik samen met de eerste minister beschouwd als de belangrijkste pleitbezorger in de regering van het Ierse model van sociaal partnerschap.
Tijdens een recent bezoek aan een aantal lidstaten, waaronder Letland en Zweden, stelde de pers mij vragen over het lopend onderzoek naar de zogeheten zaak Laval. Het gaat om een Lets bouwbedrijf, Laval, dat een aanbesteding won voor het bouwen van een school in het Zweedse Vaxholm. Er ontstond een conflict over de vraag of Laval zich aan de Zweedse CAO moest houden en of het bedrijf het gemiddelde Zweedse loon in de bouwsector moest betalen. Het conflict escaleerde; de Zweedse bouwvakbond vormde een blokkade op het bouwterrein, hetgeen ertoe leidde dat Laval het contract ontbond. Uiteindelijk ging het bedrijf failliet. De zaak werd aanhangig gemaakt voor het Zweedse Arbeidsgerecht, dat de zaak voor het Europees Hof van Justitie bracht voor een prejudiciële beslissing.
Het feit dat het Zweedse Arbeidsgerecht de zaak doorverwees naar het Europees Hof van Justitie geeft aan dat de juridische situatie complex is. Of de Zweedse autoriteiten en de vakbond al dan niet juist hebben gehandeld, zal door het Zweedse Arbeidsgerecht worden bepaald op basis van de uitspraak van het Europees Hof van Justitie.
Er zal een verzoek aan de Commissie worden gericht om een analyse in te dienen van de situatie en van alle bijbehorende juridische aspecten, waaronder artikel 49 van het Verdrag inzake vrije dienstverlening en de toepassing van de richtlijn inzake de terbeschikkingstelling van werknemers. Deze ingewikkelde analyse zal enige tijd in beslag nemen. De Commissie heeft aangaande deze kwestie nog geen standpunt geformuleerd. Dit zijn de feiten van de zaak.
Ten aanzien van de bredere vraag hoe de Commissie staat tegenover de ontwikkeling van de interne markt en het Europese sociale model, wil ik benadrukken dat deze volgens de Commissie hand in hand gaan. Ze sluiten elkaar niet uit; ze versterken elkaar. De interne markt schept nieuwe kansen voor het bedrijfsleven, de consumenten en de werknemers, waardoor het mogelijk wordt de sociale rechten te behouden en verder te ontwikkelen conform de collectieve voorkeuren van iedere afzonderlijke lidstaat.
De Commissie heeft de lastige taak te verzekeren dat de grondrechten en fundamentele vrijheden die in het Verdrag zijn neergelegd, in de gehele Unie worden gerespecteerd. Als hoeder van de interne markt vervul ik mijn taken op onpartijdige wijze. Omwille van de geloofwaardigheid kan dat ook niet anders.
Ik vind het vreemd dat ik mijn opmerkingen over een incident waarin ik twijfel uit over de verenigbaarheid van een en ander met artikel 49 van het Verdrag, moet rechtvaardigen. Ik was niet de eerste die de vraag opwerpt. Het Zweedse Arbeidsgerecht vroeg al of er sprake is van onverenigbaarheid met de communautaire wetgeving, met name de richtlijn inzake de terbeschikkingstelling van werknemers, artikel 49 van het Verdrag inzake vrije dienstverlening en artikel 12 van het Verdrag betreffende non-discriminatie."@nl3
"Mr President, let me confirm that the Commission does not call into question the organisation of labour relations and the system of collective agreements in Sweden or indeed any other Member State. It is entirely a matter for each Member State to determine how labour relations are organised and whether or not its system includes collective bargaining. The Commission recognises the important role that collective agreements play in bringing stability and predictability to economic and social relations in the many Member States that utilise these methods.
This happens to be a ‘sensitive’ issue in a Member State. But does the mere fact that an issue is sensitive deprive me of my right to express a view or carry out my duty? I believe in the necessity for the Commission to be impartial and fair in the exercise of its duties. I will continue to voice my opinions loud and clear. I do not care if it means upsetting some people. I passionately believe in the primary role of the Commission to ensure the rules of the Treaty are applied and I will vigorously defend that role. I have sworn to do so.
There are 25 Member States in the Union. I make no distinction between them. Just because Latvia is a new Member State and one of the smallest, that does not mean its complaints are less important. Latvian trade union members are entitled to have their interests defended as much as Swedish trade union members.
Neither I nor the Commission call into question the social model of any Member State or the way in which it organises labour relations. One of the strengths of the Union is its diversity. I have my views about what is good for the economy. I have never hidden these views. I also have my views about how the challenges and opportunities arising from globalisation should be addressed and I do not believe it is an option to maintain barriers and try to pretend that competition does not exist, or can be kept outside the borders.
However, I have never said that there is a single recipe for running every economy. There is no single recipe for organising labour relations and there is no single recipe for a social model. What works in one country might not work for another. I will therefore not express any view on whether the social model of one Member State is better or worse than that of another. That is a matter for political choice in each country and I know that every system will find supporters and critics. The truth lies, most of the time, in the middle. No single system has only advantages. Every system and every choice has downsides. Choices and preferences may also change. What is good now may not necessarily be so in five years’ time.
The subject being discussed today is not whether the social system of a country is under threat or whether that system is an example to others. The real issue for me is what we mean by an internal market. What do Article 49 of the Treaty and the freedom to provide services mean? What do Article 12 and the principle of non-discrimination mean?
No one has questioned the enormous benefits the internal market brings, the extra growth and the extra jobs it has created. We should not be afraid of the internal market. We should embrace it. We have a Union of 25 Member States. The world is not waiting for us to take advantage of the internal market we live in. Others will do it for us if we do not wake up. I will defend the rights laid down in the Treaty. I will continue to apply its provisions in an even-handed way. But if members of this House expect me to creep around quietly and not upset some Member States and some Members of the European Parliament, then I am afraid that they are going to be disappointed.
At the opening of the Brussels sitting earlier this month, reference was made to the fact that I had recently stated that the Scandinavian model of collective agreements was not compatible with the EC Treaty.
Those who know me will be very much aware that I have vigorously supported collective agreements in the Member State I know best. In my home country, I have been directly involved in more national partnership negotiations than any previous Irish Minister for Finance. In my time in that office, I was regarded, together with my Prime Minister, as the leading government defender of the
of Irish social partnership.
During a recent visit to a number of Member States, including Latvia and Sweden, the press asked me about the ongoing investigation in what is known as the Laval case. It is a case involving a Latvian construction company, Laval, that won a tender to build a school in Vaxholm in Sweden. As a result of a dispute on whether Laval had to sign up to the Swedish collective agreement and whether it had to pay the average Swedish wage in the construction sector, the Swedish construction trade union blocked the construction site. The action taken by the Swedish construction trade union eventually led Laval to terminate the contract and the company ultimately went bankrupt. The matter was brought before the Swedish Labour Court, which in turn referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
The fact that the Swedish Labour Court referred the matter to the European Court of Justice demonstrates that the legal situation is complicated. Whether the Swedish authorities and the trade union were right in how they handled this case will be determined by the Swedish Labour Court in the light of the ruling that will be given by the European Court of Justice.
The Commission will be invited to present its analysis of the situation and all the legal elements, including Article 49 of the Treaty on the freedom to provide services and the application of the posted workers directive. This analysis is complex and will take some time. The Commission has not yet formed a view on this. Those are the facts of the matter.
As to the broader question of how the Commission sees the development of the internal market and the European social model, let me stress that, for the Commission, the development of the internal market and the preservation of the European social model go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive; they reinforce each other. The internal market creates new opportunities for businesses, consumers and workers. This allows the preservation and further development of social rights, in accordance with the collective preferences of each individual Member State.
The Commission has an onerous duty in making sure that the basic rights and freedoms set down in the Treaty are respected throughout the Union. As guardian of the internal market, I exercise my responsibilities in an even-handed manner. To be credible, there is no alternative.
I find it extraordinary that I should have to justify remarks I made on an incident that raise questions about its compatibility with Article 49 of the Treaty. I was not the first to raise this question. It was the Swedish Labour court that asked whether there is incompatibility with Community law, in particular the posting of workers directive, Article 49 on the free movement of services and Article 12 on non-discrimination."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, permita-me confirmar que a Comissão não questiona a organização das relações laborais e o sistema de acordos colectivos na Suécia ou, na verdade, em qualquer outro Estado-Membro. Trata-se inteiramente de uma questão em que cada Estado-Membro determina a forma como as relações laborais são organizadas e se sim ou não o seu sistema inclui negociações colectivas. A Comissão reconhece o importante contributo, em termos de estabilidade e previsibilidade, trazido pelos acordos colectivos às relações económicas e sociais em muitos Estados-Membros que utilizam tais métodos.
Acontece que se trata de um tema “sensível” num Estado-Membro. Mas será que o simples facto de um tema ser sensível me priva do direito de exprimir uma opinião ou de cumprir o meu dever? Acredito na necessidade de a Comissão ser imparcial e justa no exercício dos seus deveres. Vou continuar a dar voz às minhas opiniões e a fazê-lo alto e bom som. Não me importa que isso implique desagradar a algumas pessoas. Acredito intensa e entusiasticamente no papel função essencial da Comissão como garante da aplicação das regras estipuladas no Tratado e vou defender energicamente essa função. Foi o que prestei juramento de fazer.
Existem 25 Estados-Membros na União. Não faço distinção entre eles. Apenas por que a Letónia é um novo Estado-Membro e um dos de menor dimensão, tal não significa que as queixas por ela apresentadas sejam menos importantes. Os membros dos sindicatos letões devem poder ver os seus direitos defendidos da mesma forma que os membros dos sindicatos suecos.
Nem eu nem a Comissão questionamos o modelo social da Suécia ou de qualquer outro Estado-Membro ou a forma como esse Estado organiza as relações laborais. Uma dos pontos fortes da União Europeia é a sua diversidade. Tenho as minhas opiniões sobre o que é positivo para a economia e nunca as escondi. Tenho igualmente as minhas opiniões sobre a forma como os desafios e oportunidades provenientes da globalização devem ser geridos, e não creio que seja uma opção manter barreiras e tentar fingir que a concorrência não existe ou pode ser mantida fora das fronteiras.
No entanto, eu nunca disse que havia uma receita única para fazer funcionar qualquer economia. Não há uma receita única para organizar as relações sociais e também não há uma receita única para um modelo social. O que funciona num país pode não funcionar noutro. Não vou, portanto, manifestar qualquer opinião de que o modelo social de um Estado-Membro é melhor ou pior do que o de outro. Trata-se de uma matéria de escolha política em cada país, sendo sabido que qualquer sistema encontrará sempre apoiantes e críticos. Na maior parte das vezes, a verdade situa-se algures no meio. Não há um único sistema que só possua vantagens. Cada sistema e cada escolha têm as suas desvantagens. As escolhas e as preferências também podem mudar, e o que hoje é bom pode não o ser necessariamente daqui a cinco anos.
O tema que aqui está a ser debatido hoje não tem a ver com o facto de o sistema social de um país estar a ser ameaçado ou com o facto de esse sistema constituir um modelo para os outros. Para mim, a questão que se coloca é o que entendemos por mercado interno. O que significa o artigo 49º do Tratado e a liberdade de prestação de serviços, bem como o artigo 12º e o princípio da não discriminação?
Ninguém questionou os enormes benefícios trazidos pelo mercado interno, o maior crescimento e o acréscimo de empregos por este criados. Não devemos ter medo do mercado interno. Temos uma União com 25 Estados-Membros. O mundo não vai estar à nossa espera para tirar partido do mercado interno em que vivemos. Outros farão por nós se não acordarmos. Quanto a mim, vou defender os direitos consagrados no Tratado. Vou continuar a aplicar as suas disposições de uma forma imparcial. Mas, se nesta Câmara esperam que eu actue cheio de cuidados para não incomodar este ou aquele Estado-Membro ou este ou aquele deputado do Parlamento Europeu, então receio bem que vão ficar muito desapontados.
No início da sessão de Bruxelas, há duas semanas atrás, foi feita referência ao facto de eu ter recentemente afirmado que o modelo escandinavo de acordos colectivos não era compatível com o Tratado CE.
Quem me conhece, sabe perfeitamente que apoiei energicamente acordos colectivos no Estado-Membro que conheço melhor. No meu país natal, estive directamente envolvido em mais negociações de parceria nacionais do que qualquer outro Ministro das Finanças que a Irlanda tivesse tido anteriormente. Enquanto fui detentor desse cargo, eu e o Primeiro-Ministro daquele Governo fomos considerados como os principais defensores ao nível governamental do
de parceria social irlandesa.
Durante uma recente visita a uma série de Estados-Membros, incluindo a Letónia e a Suécia, a imprensa questionou-me sobre a investigação em curso daquilo que é conhecido como o caso Laval. Trata-se de um caso envolvendo uma empresa de construção civil, a Laval, que tinha ganho um concurso para a empreitada de construção de uma escola na Suécia, na cidade de Vaxholm. Em resultado de um litígio sobre se a Laval tinha de assinar o contrato colectivo de trabalho em vigor para o sector na Suécia e sobre se a empresa tinha de pagar o salário médio sueco para a construção, o sindicato sueco da construção civil organizou um bloqueio ao estaleiro de construção da Laval. Esta acção da parte do sindicato sueco da construção civil levou a empresa a rescindir o contrato, tendo acabado por entrar em falência recentemente. O caso foi presente ao Tribunal do Trabalho da Suécia que, por sua vez, remeteu para o Tribunal Europeu de Justiça para uma decisão a título prejudicial.
O facto de o Tribunal do Trabalho da Suécia ter remetido o assunto para o Tribunal Europeu de Justiça demonstra que a situação é complexa. A justeza e adequação da forma como as autoridades suecas e o sindicato respectivo trataram este caso será determinada pelo Tribunal do Trabalho da Suécia à luz da decisão prejudicial a emitir pelo Tribunal Europeu de Justiça.
A Comissão será convidada a apresentar a sua análise da situação e todos os elementos jurídicos, incluindo o artigo 49º do Tratado sobre a liberdade de prestação de serviços e a aplicação da directiva sobre trabalhadores destacados. Esta análise é complexa e vai levar algum tempo, não tendo a Comissão formado ainda a sua opinião sobre este caso. São estes os factos em causa.
Quanto à questão mais vasta sobre a forma como a Comissão encara o desenvolvimento do mercado interno e do modelo social europeu, permitam-me chamar a atenção para o facto de a Comissão considerar que o desenvolvimento do mercado interno e a preservação do modelo social europeu caminham de mãos dadas. Não se excluem mutuamente, reforçam-se um ao outro. O mercado interno cria novas oportunidades para empresas, consumidores e trabalhadores, o que permite a preservação e um maior desenvolvimento dos direitos sociais, de acordo com as preferências de cada Estado-Membro em matéria de negociação colectiva.
A Comissão tem o pesado dever de garantir que os direitos e liberdades fundamentais consagrados no Tratado são respeitados em toda a União. Enquanto guardião do mercado interno, exerço as minhas responsabilidades de uma forma imparcial. Para ser credível, não há alternativa.
Considero singular o facto de eu ter de justificar comentários por mim formulados relativamente a um incidente que levantou questões de incompatibilidade com o artigo 49º do Tratado. Não fui o primeiro a levantar esta questão, foi o Tribunal do Trabalho da Suécia que perguntou se haveria incompatibilidade com a legislação comunitária, em particular com a directiva sobre o destacamento de trabalhadores, o artigo 49º sobre livre circulação de serviços e o artigo 12º do Tratado sobre não discriminação."@pt17
"Mr President, let me confirm that the Commission does not call into question the organisation of labour relations and the system of collective agreements in Sweden or indeed any other Member State. It is entirely a matter for each Member State to determine how labour relations are organised and whether or not its system includes collective bargaining. The Commission recognises the important role that collective agreements play in bringing stability and predictability to economic and social relations in the many Member States that utilise these methods.
This happens to be a ‘sensitive’ issue in a Member State. But does the mere fact that an issue is sensitive deprive me of my right to express a view or carry out my duty? I believe in the necessity for the Commission to be impartial and fair in the exercise of its duties. I will continue to voice my opinions loud and clear. I do not care if it means upsetting some people. I passionately believe in the primary role of the Commission to ensure the rules of the Treaty are applied and I will vigorously defend that role. I have sworn to do so.
There are 25 Member States in the Union. I make no distinction between them. Just because Latvia is a new Member State and one of the smallest, that does not mean its complaints are less important. Latvian trade union members are entitled to have their interests defended as much as Swedish trade union members.
Neither I nor the Commission call into question the social model of any Member State or the way in which it organises labour relations. One of the strengths of the Union is its diversity. I have my views about what is good for the economy. I have never hidden these views. I also have my views about how the challenges and opportunities arising from globalisation should be addressed and I do not believe it is an option to maintain barriers and try to pretend that competition does not exist, or can be kept outside the borders.
However, I have never said that there is a single recipe for running every economy. There is no single recipe for organising labour relations and there is no single recipe for a social model. What works in one country might not work for another. I will therefore not express any view on whether the social model of one Member State is better or worse than that of another. That is a matter for political choice in each country and I know that every system will find supporters and critics. The truth lies, most of the time, in the middle. No single system has only advantages. Every system and every choice has downsides. Choices and preferences may also change. What is good now may not necessarily be so in five years’ time.
The subject being discussed today is not whether the social system of a country is under threat or whether that system is an example to others. The real issue for me is what we mean by an internal market. What do Article 49 of the Treaty and the freedom to provide services mean? What do Article 12 and the principle of non-discrimination mean?
No one has questioned the enormous benefits the internal market brings, the extra growth and the extra jobs it has created. We should not be afraid of the internal market. We should embrace it. We have a Union of 25 Member States. The world is not waiting for us to take advantage of the internal market we live in. Others will do it for us if we do not wake up. I will defend the rights laid down in the Treaty. I will continue to apply its provisions in an even-handed way. But if members of this House expect me to creep around quietly and not upset some Member States and some Members of the European Parliament, then I am afraid that they are going to be disappointed.
At the opening of the Brussels sitting earlier this month, reference was made to the fact that I had recently stated that the Scandinavian model of collective agreements was not compatible with the EC Treaty.
Those who know me will be very much aware that I have vigorously supported collective agreements in the Member State I know best. In my home country, I have been directly involved in more national partnership negotiations than any previous Irish Minister for Finance. In my time in that office, I was regarded, together with my Prime Minister, as the leading government defender of the
of Irish social partnership.
During a recent visit to a number of Member States, including Latvia and Sweden, the press asked me about the ongoing investigation in what is known as the Laval case. It is a case involving a Latvian construction company, Laval, that won a tender to build a school in Vaxholm in Sweden. As a result of a dispute on whether Laval had to sign up to the Swedish collective agreement and whether it had to pay the average Swedish wage in the construction sector, the Swedish construction trade union blocked the construction site. The action taken by the Swedish construction trade union eventually led Laval to terminate the contract and the company ultimately went bankrupt. The matter was brought before the Swedish Labour Court, which in turn referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
The fact that the Swedish Labour Court referred the matter to the European Court of Justice demonstrates that the legal situation is complicated. Whether the Swedish authorities and the trade union were right in how they handled this case will be determined by the Swedish Labour Court in the light of the ruling that will be given by the European Court of Justice.
The Commission will be invited to present its analysis of the situation and all the legal elements, including Article 49 of the Treaty on the freedom to provide services and the application of the posted workers directive. This analysis is complex and will take some time. The Commission has not yet formed a view on this. Those are the facts of the matter.
As to the broader question of how the Commission sees the development of the internal market and the European social model, let me stress that, for the Commission, the development of the internal market and the preservation of the European social model go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive; they reinforce each other. The internal market creates new opportunities for businesses, consumers and workers. This allows the preservation and further development of social rights, in accordance with the collective preferences of each individual Member State.
The Commission has an onerous duty in making sure that the basic rights and freedoms set down in the Treaty are respected throughout the Union. As guardian of the internal market, I exercise my responsibilities in an even-handed manner. To be credible, there is no alternative.
I find it extraordinary that I should have to justify remarks I made on an incident that raise questions about its compatibility with Article 49 of the Treaty. I was not the first to raise this question. It was the Swedish Labour court that asked whether there is incompatibility with Community law, in particular the posting of workers directive, Article 49 on the free movement of services and Article 12 on non-discrimination."@sk18
"Mr President, let me confirm that the Commission does not call into question the organisation of labour relations and the system of collective agreements in Sweden or indeed any other Member State. It is entirely a matter for each Member State to determine how labour relations are organised and whether or not its system includes collective bargaining. The Commission recognises the important role that collective agreements play in bringing stability and predictability to economic and social relations in the many Member States that utilise these methods.
This happens to be a ‘sensitive’ issue in a Member State. But does the mere fact that an issue is sensitive deprive me of my right to express a view or carry out my duty? I believe in the necessity for the Commission to be impartial and fair in the exercise of its duties. I will continue to voice my opinions loud and clear. I do not care if it means upsetting some people. I passionately believe in the primary role of the Commission to ensure the rules of the Treaty are applied and I will vigorously defend that role. I have sworn to do so.
There are 25 Member States in the Union. I make no distinction between them. Just because Latvia is a new Member State and one of the smallest, that does not mean its complaints are less important. Latvian trade union members are entitled to have their interests defended as much as Swedish trade union members.
Neither I nor the Commission call into question the social model of any Member State or the way in which it organises labour relations. One of the strengths of the Union is its diversity. I have my views about what is good for the economy. I have never hidden these views. I also have my views about how the challenges and opportunities arising from globalisation should be addressed and I do not believe it is an option to maintain barriers and try to pretend that competition does not exist, or can be kept outside the borders.
However, I have never said that there is a single recipe for running every economy. There is no single recipe for organising labour relations and there is no single recipe for a social model. What works in one country might not work for another. I will therefore not express any view on whether the social model of one Member State is better or worse than that of another. That is a matter for political choice in each country and I know that every system will find supporters and critics. The truth lies, most of the time, in the middle. No single system has only advantages. Every system and every choice has downsides. Choices and preferences may also change. What is good now may not necessarily be so in five years’ time.
The subject being discussed today is not whether the social system of a country is under threat or whether that system is an example to others. The real issue for me is what we mean by an internal market. What do Article 49 of the Treaty and the freedom to provide services mean? What do Article 12 and the principle of non-discrimination mean?
No one has questioned the enormous benefits the internal market brings, the extra growth and the extra jobs it has created. We should not be afraid of the internal market. We should embrace it. We have a Union of 25 Member States. The world is not waiting for us to take advantage of the internal market we live in. Others will do it for us if we do not wake up. I will defend the rights laid down in the Treaty. I will continue to apply its provisions in an even-handed way. But if members of this House expect me to creep around quietly and not upset some Member States and some Members of the European Parliament, then I am afraid that they are going to be disappointed.
At the opening of the Brussels sitting earlier this month, reference was made to the fact that I had recently stated that the Scandinavian model of collective agreements was not compatible with the EC Treaty.
Those who know me will be very much aware that I have vigorously supported collective agreements in the Member State I know best. In my home country, I have been directly involved in more national partnership negotiations than any previous Irish Minister for Finance. In my time in that office, I was regarded, together with my Prime Minister, as the leading government defender of the
of Irish social partnership.
During a recent visit to a number of Member States, including Latvia and Sweden, the press asked me about the ongoing investigation in what is known as the Laval case. It is a case involving a Latvian construction company, Laval, that won a tender to build a school in Vaxholm in Sweden. As a result of a dispute on whether Laval had to sign up to the Swedish collective agreement and whether it had to pay the average Swedish wage in the construction sector, the Swedish construction trade union blocked the construction site. The action taken by the Swedish construction trade union eventually led Laval to terminate the contract and the company ultimately went bankrupt. The matter was brought before the Swedish Labour Court, which in turn referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
The fact that the Swedish Labour Court referred the matter to the European Court of Justice demonstrates that the legal situation is complicated. Whether the Swedish authorities and the trade union were right in how they handled this case will be determined by the Swedish Labour Court in the light of the ruling that will be given by the European Court of Justice.
The Commission will be invited to present its analysis of the situation and all the legal elements, including Article 49 of the Treaty on the freedom to provide services and the application of the posted workers directive. This analysis is complex and will take some time. The Commission has not yet formed a view on this. Those are the facts of the matter.
As to the broader question of how the Commission sees the development of the internal market and the European social model, let me stress that, for the Commission, the development of the internal market and the preservation of the European social model go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive; they reinforce each other. The internal market creates new opportunities for businesses, consumers and workers. This allows the preservation and further development of social rights, in accordance with the collective preferences of each individual Member State.
The Commission has an onerous duty in making sure that the basic rights and freedoms set down in the Treaty are respected throughout the Union. As guardian of the internal market, I exercise my responsibilities in an even-handed manner. To be credible, there is no alternative.
I find it extraordinary that I should have to justify remarks I made on an incident that raise questions about its compatibility with Article 49 of the Treaty. I was not the first to raise this question. It was the Swedish Labour court that asked whether there is incompatibility with Community law, in particular the posting of workers directive, Article 49 on the free movement of services and Article 12 on non-discrimination."@sl19
".
Herr talman! Låt mig bekräfta att kommissionen inte ifrågasätter anställningsförhållandenas struktur och kollektivavtalssystemet i Sverige, eller i någon annan medlemsstat. Det är helt och hållet upp till varje medlemsstat att bestämma hur förhållandena på arbetsmarknaden ska struktureras och om deras system ska inbegripa kollektiva förhandlingar. Kommissionen erkänner den viktiga roll kollektivavtal spelar för att uppnå stabilitet och förutsägbarhet i de ekonomiska och sociala förbindelserna i de många medlemsstater som använder sig av de här metoderna.
Det här råkar vara en ”känslig” fråga i en medlemsstat. Men att en fråga är känslig berövar väl inte mig rätten att uttrycka en åsikt eller att utföra mina uppgifter? Jag anser att kommissionen måste vara opartisk och rättvis när den fullföljer sina uppgifter. Jag kommer att fortsätta uttrycka mina åsikter högt och tydligt. Jag bryr mig inte om ifall det innebär att människor blir upprörda. Jag anser helhjärtat att kommissionens främsta roll är att säkerställa att fördragets bestämmelser tillämpas, och jag kommer att försvara den rollen stenhårt. Jag har svurit på att göra det.
EU består av 25 medlemsländer. Jag gör ingen åtskillnad mellan dem. Bara för att Lettland är en ny medlemsstat och en av de minsta betyder inte det att dess klagomål är mindre viktiga. Lettiska fackmedlemmar är berättigade till att få sina rättigheter försvarade lika mycket som svenska fackmedlemmar.
Varken jag eller kommissionen ifrågasätter medlemsstaternas sociala modeller eller det sätt de arrangerar anställningsförhållanden på. Denna mångfald är en av EU:s styrkor. Jag har mina åsikter om vad som är bra för ekonomin. Jag har aldrig gömt dessa åsikter. Jag har också mina synpunkter på hur utmaningarna och möjligheterna som härrör från globalisering borde hanteras, och jag tror inte att det är ett bra alternativ att upprätthålla hinder och försöka låtsas som att konkurrens inte existerar, eller kan hållas utanför gränserna.
Jag har emellertid aldrig sagt att det finns ett enda sätt att driva samtliga ekonomier på. Det finns inte ett enda sätt att arrangera anställningsförhållanden på, och det finns inte en enda lösning för en social modell. Det som fungerar i ett land kanske inte fungerar för andra. Därför ger jag ingen synpunkt på om den sociala modellen i en medlemsstat är bättre eller sämre än den i en annan. Det handlar om politiska val i de enskilda länderna, och jag vet att alla system kommer att ha anhängare och kritiker. Sanningen är oftast medelvägen. Det finns inte ett enda system som bara har fördelar. Varje system och varje val har negativa sidor. Val och preferenser kan också förändras. Det som fungerar bra nu behöver inte fungera så bra om fem år.
Frågan som diskuteras i dag handlar inte om huruvida det sociala systemet i ett land är hotat eller om det systemet är ett exempel för andra. Jag anser att den grundläggande frågan är vad den inre marknaden innebär. Vad innebär artikel 49 i fördraget om frihet att tillhandahålla tjänster? Vad innebär artikel 12 och principen om icke-diskriminering?
Ingen har ifrågasatt de enorma fördelar den inre marknaden för med sig, den extra tillväxt och det extra antalet arbetstillfällen den har skapat. Vi borde inte vara rädda för den inre marknaden. Vi borde anamma den. Vår union består av 25 medlemsstater. Världen utanför väntar inte på att vi drar fördel av den inre marknad vi lever i. Andra kommer att göra det i vårt ställe om vi inte rycker upp oss. Jag försvarar de rättigheter som är fastställda i fördraget. Jag kommer att fortsätta tillämpa dess bestämmelser på ett opartiskt sätt. Men om parlamentsledamöter förväntar sig att jag tyst ska smyga omkring och inte reta upp någon medlemsstat eller några parlamentsledamöter är jag rädd för att de kommer att bli besvikna.
Vid öppnandet av sammanträdet i Bryssel tidigare denna månad hänvisades det till att jag nyligen hade sagt att den skandinaviska kollektivavtalsmodellen inte var förenlig med EG-fördraget.
De som känner mig är väl medvetna om att jag starkt stöder kollektivavtal i de medlemsstater jag känner till bäst. I mitt hemland har jag varit direkt inblandad i fler nationella förhandlingar om partnerskap än någon tidigare irländsk finansminister. Under min ämbetstid betraktades jag, tillsammans med min premiärminister, som regeringens ledande försvarare av modellen för ett irländskt socialt partnerskap.
Under det besök jag nyligen avlade i ett antal medlemsstater, inklusive Lettland och Sverige, frågade medierna mig om den pågående undersökningen av det som är känt som Vaxholmsfallet. Fallet handlar om det lettiska byggföretaget Laval, som vann en upphandling som gällde att bygga en skola i Vaxholm i Sverige. Till följd av en konflikt om huruvida Laval var tvunget att skriva på det svenska kollektivavtalet och om det var tvunget att betala svenska genomsnittliga löner i byggsektorn, blockerade Svenska byggnadsarbetareförbundet byggarbetsplatsen. Det åtgärder som Svenska byggnadsarbetareförbundet vidtog ledde slutligen till att Laval avslutade kontraktet och att företaget till slut gick i konkurs. Ärendet togs upp i svenska Arbetsdomstolen, som i sin tur hänsköt ärendet till EG-domstolen för ett förhandsavgörande.
Att svenska Arbetsdomstolen hänsköt ärendet till EG-domstolen visar att den rättsliga situationen är komplicerad. Svenska Arbetsdomstolen kommer mot bakgrund av EG-domstolens avgörande att besluta om de svenska myndigheterna och facket skötte fallet på rätt sätt.
Kommissionen kommer att få möjlighet att lägga fram sin bedömning av situationen och alla rättsliga faktorer, inklusive artikel 49 i fördraget om frihet att tillhandahålla tjänster och tillämpningen av direktivet om utstationerade arbetstagare. Denna undersökning är invecklad och kommer att ta tid. Hittills har kommissionen inte antagit någon ståndpunkt i ärendet. Detta är således ärendets gång.
När det gäller den övergripande frågan om hur kommissionen betraktar utvecklingen av den inre marknaden och den europeiska sociala modellen, vill jag betona att den inre marknadens utveckling och bevarandet av den Europeiska modellen går hand i hand för kommissionen. De utesluter inte varandra; tvärtom förstärker de varandra. Den inre marknaden skapar nya möjligheter för företag, konsumenter och arbetstagare. Detta tillåter bevarande och ytterligare utveckling av sociala rättigheter, i enlighet med varje enskild medlemsstats kollektiva preferenser.
Kommissionen har den svåra uppgiften att se till att de grundläggande rättigheterna och friheterna, som fastställts i fördraget, respekteras inom hela unionen. Som beskyddare av den inre marknaden sköter jag mina skyldigheter på ett rättvist sätt. Det finns inga alternativ om man ska vara trovärdig.
Jag finner det otroligt att jag ska behöva rättfärdiga mina yttranden om en händelse som ger upphov till frågor om dess förenlighet med artikel 49 i fördraget. Jag var inte den förste som tog upp frågan. Det var svenska Arbetsdomstolen som ställde frågan om det är oförenligt med gemenskapsrätten, särskilt direktivet om utstationerade arbetstagare, artikel 49 om fri rörlighet av tjänster och artikel 12 om icke-diskriminering."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Applause from the right)"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"(ΕΝ)"10
"Charlie McCreevy,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,10,13,4
"Laval"12,12
"Member of the Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4
"Modells"9
"model"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"modelo"20,17
"μοντέλου"10
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples