Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-22-Speech-3-251"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-10-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"lt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20081022.17.3-251"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-10-22-Speech-3-2522
lpv:speaker	lp:Ona Rainyté-bodard2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2004-09-22--2009-07-13)3,3 member; Delegation for relations with Afghanistan (2007-03-15--2009-07-13)3,3 member; EMPL (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3,3 substitute; LIBE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3,3 unknown; Darbo partija (2004-07-20--2009-02-16)3,3 member; ALDE (2008-06-26--2009-07-13)3,3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-20--2009-07-13)3,3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Canada (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3,3
lpv:translated text	"The Temporary Agency Workers Directive is important in our drive to legalise the free movement of services and workers throughout the Community. Not all Member States are adhering to the requirements of the directive. Sometimes more is being demanded of service providers than was stated in the directive. By distorting the regulations of the directive, services between Member States are being blocked and, in this way, protectionist policies are being concealed. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) investigated the case of the Latvian construction company “Laval”, which was prohibited from providing construction services in Sweden. A collective contract was required according to Swedish law, although the contract was signed in Latvia. The ECJ decided that it is prohibited to make requirements which are additional to or greater than those set out in the directive. The decisions made by the ECJ in the “Laval” and other similar cases are criticised and even questioned in the report and amendments. I voted against as I believe that the European Parliament is exceeding its remit by interpreting or questioning decisions taken by the ECJ. I do not agree with the statements, which cast doubt on the justice of the ECJ’s decisions, and propose that the ECJ’s resolutions should not be applied in certain EU countries. With such statements we not only question the competence of the ECJ, we express doubt in its impartiality, risk distorting the EU’s institutional system and encourage people’s lack of confidence in it. I also disagree with the aim of reviewing and revising the directive. If the directive is not working in some countries as it should, then the Community Members are responsible for this, as they are failing to put the directive’s regulations into practice or are applying them inappropriately in national law. The European Commission should observe whether EU directives are transferred to national law correctly and whether national laws are in keeping with the essence and spirit of the directives."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph