Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-13-Speech-3-269"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001213.9.3-269"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The previous answer which the Commission gave to question P-3079/00 may well have been interpreted incorrectly. This is why, on behalf of the Commission, I would like to make a point of imparting the following piece of information to Mr Sjöstedt. All Member States are bound by Regulation 2679/98 which clearly states that the regulation may not be interpreted in a way which could in any way prejudice the constitutional rights as recognised in the Member States, including the right to strike or freedom to strike. It is obvious that the Commission respects this principle. Having said this, pursuant to the same regulation, Member States need to take all necessary and proportionate measures to restore the free movement of goods on their territory as soon as possible so as to avoid serious disruptions to the free movement of goods when a restriction as defined in the regulation has occurred in the context of a strike or similar action.
Furthermore, Member States must notify the Commission of any restriction occurring on their territory and of the action undertaken by them.
I would like to draw attention to the fact that Member States must decide for themselves what constitutes a legal strike pursuant to their legislation. I would like to underline that the Member States have exclusive authority to define whether, when and to what extent measures are necessary and commensurate so as to facilitate the free movement of goods on their territory. This is clear from recital 6 of the regulation.
The principles which I have outlined apply to all questions raised by Mr Sjöstedt."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples