Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-07-Speech-4-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021107.2.4-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I do not know whether Europe can always assist but at least it tries.
Article 48(2) of the Treaty of Rome (now Article 39(2)) refers to the treatment of workers of different nationalities within a Member State, and not to differences in labour law and employment rights between countries. It is therefore not obvious that Article 39 is relevant in this case.
Article 118 of the Treaty of Rome (now Art. 137), which I suppose the Reverend had in mind as regards the harmonisation of working conditions, gives the Community a number of competences in the social field, including the issue of working conditions. On the basis of these considerations I cannot identify any breach of European law nor any failure by the British Government to transpose the relevant European legislation. I hope that this clarifies the issue.
I would first like to thank the rapporteur and the members of the Committee on Petitions and the members of the Employment and Social Affairs Committee for their excellent work and analysis.
As reported by the Earl of Stockton, Reverend Owen alleges that his fundamental rights have not been respected and that European directives have either been breached or incorrectly applied by the United Kingdom authorities. In his petition, he refers in particular to the fact that he has been discriminated against, contrary to Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, and contrary to Articles 48(2) and 112 of the Treaty of Rome. He furthermore claims that Council Directive 91/533/EEC concerning information on individual employment conditions has not been properly incorporated into UK law.
It is true that we have been dealing with this issue for more than one and a half years and a lot of legal and other work has been done.
As mentioned in the Commission Communication of 13 December 2001 on the case, and in my letter of 11 January 2002 to honourable Members Ford, Cashman and Hughes, the Commission could not identify any breach of European law, nor any failure by the British Government to transpose properly the relevant European legislation into UK law.
I do not believe I need to add anything to what I have already communicated in my letter, but I will attempt to explain and analyse some of the aspects of the directives and the articles of the Treaties.
Council Directive 91/533/EEC applies to every paid employee having a contract or employment relationship defined by the law in force in a Member State. It does not, however, provide an EU definition of an employee, which is left to national employment legislation. The United Kingdom confirmed that members of the clergy, in respect of their core duties as clergymen, are officeholders and not employees under UK employment law. As clergy are not employees for the purpose of the scope of this directive, it was not necessary to specifically cover or specifically exclude them.
As regards the issue of discrimination, Article 13 of the EC Treaty allows the Community to take action but has no direct effect. It does not, therefore, grant individuals any rights which can be enforced by national courts or the European Court of Justice.
Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishes a general principle of prohibition of any direct or indirect discrimination. However, the directive does not need to be transposed by Member States until 2 December 2003 so we cannot apply it to this case at present."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples