Brussels, 04/10/2007 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday 4 October, the petitions committee of the European Parliament gave its major support to the European Ombudsman Nikiforos Diamandouros, who had come to explain the reasons underlying a special report regarding the European working time directive. In his special report, the ombudsman criticised the European Commission for not having dealt with the complaints tabled in November 2001 by a German doctor concerning this directive within the time-frame laid down (see the details of the position of the Ombudsman in EUROPE 9504). For its part, the Commission voiced its regrets, explaining that it had always tried to reach an “acceptable and balanced compromise” within the Council of Ministers on its proposed amendments to the working time directive, “which, the Commission stated, was not possible”, the ombudsman acknowledged. He takes the view that “the Commission's response was unsatisfactory”. An opinion on this special report will be drafted by the Parliamentary committee, said its president, Marcin Libiki (UEN, Poland) after the meeting.
“First of all, the Commission wanted to investigate the political and legislative framework of this case”, responded its representative from DG Employment, who pointed out that the working time directive applied to all those employed by the Union. In the present case, “we are in a situation of lack of clarity on legislative text”, the European expert continued. The Commission wanted to deal with the complaint using a cross-cutting approach; in other words, it wanted to study the situation not only in Germany (legislative provisions and new provisions adopted in order to bring the country into line with European law, the representative explained), but also in all of the member states, he explained. “The Commission has many problems accepting this accusation of inaction, when it proposed modifications to the working time directive in 2004, which it worked on very closely with the Council and the European Parliament to reach a compromise on these modifications, when it sent letters to all of the member states to try to understand how their legislation was applied from the point of view of standby time, and more particularly, hospital on-call time”. In 2008, the Commission is to present a report on this situation, the expert announced. The European commissioner for social affairs, Vladimir Spidla, is inclined to move forward with infringement procedures in light of the investigations carried out by the Commission. These investigations are now concluded. The Commission will therefore launch infringement proceedings against Germany, if no compromise can be reached under the Portuguese presidency, the expert concluded.
Marios Matsakis (ALDE, Cyprus) emphasised two aspects: the procedure and the substance of the case. “The main problem is the procedure: a citizen of the Union tables a complaint in November 2001 and we are now in November 2007! Nothing has been done”, he exclaimed. “The citizen places his trust in the EU to find a solution to his problem. At present, he no longer knows whether he has to work for all of these hours, or whether or not he will be paid. Six years after he brought his complaint, the Commission has done nothing! This is intolerable!”. He voiced the question: what is the point of having an ombudsman? “We must support the ombudsman, who must be very strict and the Parliament supports the citizen via the ombudsman, who represents all citizens with a complaint”, concluded Marios Matsakis.
In the view of Rainer Wieland (EPP-ED, Germany), “the unchallenged discretionary power of the Commission is a problem (…). To do nothing whilst the procedures are under way is not the right way of acting”, said Mr Wieland, in an appeal for his colleagues to support the ombudsman. Proinsas De Rossa (PES, Ireland) described the Commission's defence as “unacceptable”, when it says that it is “acting for political reasons”, and suggested that the Parliamentary committee “present a resolution” on this issue.
Maria Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou (EPP-ED, Greece) stressed that the Commission had done all in its power to reach a compromise solution and that the EP had adopted the Cercas report two years ago. It is, therefore, the Council which is not taking a definitive position and which has not approved the Cercas report (which was voted on by two large groups within the EP, the MEP pointed out). “My recommendation is for the European ombudsman to present this problem before the employment committee of the EP. It is unfair for proceedings against a country to be brought before the Court of Justice when this issue is solely in the hands of the Council”, she concluded.
“What the Commission says is not satisfactory, because this is a question of procedure, and not a specific issue”, commented Marcin Libiki (UEN, Poland), concluding that an “opinion will be drafted on the special report by the ombudsman”. “I understand the position of the Commission and respect it, but there is a difference of opinion”, the ombudsman concluded. (gb)