You are on page 1of 2

2. 10.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 304/23

It specifies the basic obligation on the part of awarding entities, in the general documents or specifications
relating to each contract for the procurement of air traffic management equipment and systems, to refer to the
specifications adopted in accordance with this Directive.

Transposition of the Directive into national law in each Member State was required by 20 July 1994. At that date,
Greece had not notified any implementing measures for the Directive to the Commission. Consequently, the
Commission initiated infringement procedures. The Greek authorities replied to the letter of formal notice by
letter of 3 October 1996 in which they communicated the publication in the Official Journal (No 230, of
17 September 1996) of legislation (number 351) implementing Council Directive 93/65/EEC into Greek law.
Following this notification, which was considered to be adequate, the Commission closed the infringement
procedure against Greece.

The effective adoption of Eurocontrol standards into Community law is achieved under the Directive through
specific legislative acts adopted within the committee procedure set out in Article 6. Two Eurocontrol standards
− the on-line data interchange (OLDI) and the air traffic services exchange presentation (ADEXP) − are
currently mandatory under Commission Directive 97/15/CE of 25 March 1997 adopting Eurocontrol standards
and amending Council Directive 93/65/EEC (1). Those standards do not deal with safety aspects but are essential
to achieve interoperability between national air traffic control systems. Member States should have brought the
implementing measures for this Directive into force by 1 December 1997. To date, Greece has not notified the
Commission of any measures implementing this Directive, and will, therefore, receive a letter of formal notice in
due course.

In practice, however, the Commission does not have any evidence that Greece does not apply Eurocontrol

Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Directive concerns measures that Member States have taken to achieve the
objectives of the Directive. The Committee established under the Directive is currently debating the
interpretation of this provision and is expected shortly to adopt a position concerning the type of measures to be
notified so that Member States can know what is expected of them. It is likely that the measures to be notified
should be organisational in nature.

(1) OJ L 95, 10.4.1997.

(98/C 304/33) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0052/98
by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE) to the Commission
(29 January 1998)

Subject: Arrangements affecting building contractors posting workers to another country in the framework of
the provision of services

Directive 96/71/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the
posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, further clarified by Declaration No 7 of the
Council and Commission (minutes of the Council meeting of 24 September 1996, CODEC 550), concerns
contributions to national social insurance schemes and the benefits paid by such schemes which do not form part
of the general social security system.

The precise scope of these arrangements and the procedures for their application in the building industry give rise
to various questions.

Of particular interest are the principle of and procedures for payments of contributions to a social insurance fund
in the host country which are governed by a collective agreement or legislation, whether or not a corresponding
system exists in the country of origin.

Against this background and
− as the two sides of industry in the construction sector, the European Construction Industry Federation (FIEC)
and the European Federation of Building and Woodworkers (EFBWW), have recently signed a joint opinion
on this subject, which opens the way for the conclusion of bilateral agreements at national level aimed at
both ensuring respect for workers’ rights and preventing the double payment of contributions to the
employers’ disadvantage;
− as the two sides of industry in the Belgian and Dutch construction sector have concluded a bilateral
agreement on all their sectoral social systems;
− as the French and German sectoral funds have concluded an agreement on paid leave in the two countries,
C 304/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2. 10. 98

what is the Commission’s view of the joint opinion and the agreements referred to above, and what are its
intentions with regard to overcoming the problems that continue to arise in this sector?

(1) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission
(13 March 1998)

The Commission is concerned by the fact that firms providing transnational services in the territory of a host
Member State are required to meet identical obligations under both the law of the Member State in which they are
established and the law of the host Member State. Such situations occur mainly in the construction sector, where
some Member States have social insurance schemes that are responsible for paying benefits to workers, e.g. for
paid leave, and are financed by employers’ contributions. Such situations, which cause double payments to be
levied on employers, run counter to the freedom to provide services and are inconsistent with the provisions of
Directive 96/71/EC, the deadline for transposition of which expires on 16 December 1999. In laying down
precise rules to be complied with by service providers in host Member States, Directive 96/71/EC specifically
aims at avoiding double payment situations.

All solutions likely to remedy such situations must be considered. The Commission has called on the Member
States’ representatives in the group it has set up to monitor transposition of the Directive to cooperate actively in
seeking solutions.

The Commission welcomes the joint opinion recently adopted by the social partners in the construction sector at
European level and the bilateral collective agreements concluded at national level with a view to ensuring respect
for workers’ rights and preventing the double payment of employers’ contributions.

The Commission is very much in favour of agreement-based solutions which are properly geared to the often
complex situation in the sector concerned.

(98/C 304/34) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0054/98
by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission
(29 January 1998)

Subject: Dramatic reduction in Community olive oil subsidies

Olive oil producers in Greece are in a very difficult economic position, following the decision to cut the
Community support price from Drachma 457 a kilo to Drachma 301 a kilo.

This decision has driven producers to despair, since they will lose a total of some Drachma 180 billion in 1998, a
loss which comes at a time when they are suffering an unprecedented fall in income, owing to the repeated
austerity programmes implemented by Greek governments over the last few years. Their objective inability to
replace olive oil production with some other product makes the situation even more complicated, and they
increasingly feel that they are producing a product which does not enjoy the substantive support of the EU.

Will the Commission say precisely what measures it intends to take to support long-suffering Greek olive oil
producers whose future will obviously be in jeopardy if the decision to cut the Community support price for olive
oil is implemented?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission
(26 February 1998)

The common organisation of the market in olive oil lays down a system of production aid for olive oil, as
− producers who exceed an average 500 kilograms of olive oil per marketing year are granted aid of
ECU 142.20 per 100 kilograms, subject to reduction if there is an overrun of the maximum guaranteed
quantity (MGQ), which is 1 350 000 tonnes;