28 Amendments of Charlotte CEDERSCHIÖLD related to 2008/2085(INI)
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that the freedom to provide services is a cornerstone of the European project; however, this has to be balanced against fundamental rights and the possibility for governments and trade unions to ensure non-discrimination and equal treatment;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 f (new)
Paragraph 1 f (new)
1f. Underlines that the internal market is characterized by that the obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is abolished between the MS, as well as by an open market economy with free competition;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that the freedom to provide services is not superior to the fundamental right for trade unions to take industrial action; especially, since this is a constitutional right in several Member StatesECJ has ruled that the right for trade unions to take industrial action must be recognised as a fundamental right; however, the exercise of that may non the less be subject to restrictions as emphasized by the ECJ;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Emphasises that the freedom to conduct a business in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices is spelled out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights; however notes that the right of collective bargaining, equally mentioned in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, must be conducted in accordance with Union law and national law and practices and is equally limited through the proportionality principle as spelled out by the Court of Justice in the Viking case;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that Article 3(7) of the PWD clearly states that trade unions should be able to demand terms and conditions of employment which are more favourable to workersstates that Article 3(1-6) shall not prevent application of terms and conditions of employment which are more favourable to workers; also stresses that, according to the ECJ as stated in the Laval case, this article cannot be interpreted as allowing the host Member State to make the provision of services in its territory conditional on the observance of terms and conditions of employment which go beyond the mandatory rules for minimum protection;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points outStresses that recital 22 in the PWD states that provisions laid down in the PWD should have no effecthe directive is without prejudice to the law of the Member States concerning collective action to defend the interests of trades and professions; equally stresses that the ECJ stated in the Laval case that the right to take collective action falls within the scope of application of Community law and therefore must be justified by an overriding reason of public interest and be proportionate; emphasizes in that con the right to take industrial actitext that the ECJ has ruled that the right to take collective action for the protection of the workers constitute such an overriding reason;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Emphasises that equal treatment, equal pay for equal work as well as Articles 39 and 12 of the EC Treaty form the foundation of EC law which needs to be restoredthe PWD did not harmonise the material content of the mandatory rules for minimum protection and that that content may accordingly be freely defined by the Member States in compliance with the Treaty and the general principles of Community law;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Emphasises that treatment as well as Article 39 of the EC Treaty form the foundation of EC law as regards the free movement of workers; however that Article 39 and the principle of equal treatment do not apply to workers posted on a temporary basis to another Member State for the purposes of providing services there to which the PWD and Article 49 apply;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines the importance of not allowing the verdicts to negatively effectsupport for labour market models that already today are able to combine a high degree of flexibility on the labour market with a high level of security and, instead, of further promoting this approach;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Underlines that the verdicts fully respect the different labour market models that combine a high degree of flexibility on the labour market with a high level of security;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Underlines that the intention of the legislator in the PWD and Service Directive is not reflected in the ECJ verdicts, which, instead of protecte fact that the ECJ is the ultimate interpreter of the Community legislation, equally underlines that its verdicts are binding precedents, meant for the national court asking wforkers, is inviting unfair competition between companies; companies that sign and follow collective agreements will have a competitive disadvantage to companies that refuse to do so the preliminary ruling according to the principle of loyalty in article 10 of the Treaty; this in order to guarantee the equal application of community law in all Member States;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Regretsiterates the fact that all conditions imposed on foreign employers above minimum levels are seen as obstacles to free movement, if employees do not already receive more favourable conditions in the country of origin;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Underlines that the PWD seeks to bring about the freedom to provide services, which is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, while guaranteeing the adequate protection of posted workers, and that a proportionate balance between these interests must be maintained;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. QuestionNotes the introduction of a proportionality principle in the Viking case forwhich applies when the right to use collective action is exercised against undertakings which, when using make use of the rights of establishment or the right to provide services across borders, deliberately undercut terms and conditions of employment; such a proportionality principle is not compatible with the character of this right as a fundamental right; there should be no question about the right of trade unions to use industrial action to uphold equal treatment and secure decent working conditions;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises that the PWD as interpreted by the ECJ would prevent demands for equal pay for work for all workers regardless of their nationality or that of their employer in the place where the service is provided; this runs counter to the principle of nprinciple of equal pay and of non-discrimination which are established in the Treaty will continue to apply with regard to workers moving to another Member State to seek for a job or take up employment there, and that trade unions will continue to have the right to take action to uphold equal treatment and secure decent working con-discrimination which is established in the Treaty especially with regard to the mobility of workerstions at national level for migrant workers; takes for granted that the ECJ does not pronounce itself in a way counter to the non-discriminatory principle;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Regrets the fact that even though the PWD was formulated as a minimum standard directive,Acknowledges that the ECJ determrulinegs that those minimum standards must be regarded as the maximum in the context of the Laval judgement; this approachin the Viking, Laval and Rüffert cases have causesd great concerns as to whether any directives decided on the basis of a minimum approach are regarded as valid; if all directives in the social dimension were to be reformulated as maximum directives, as in the case of the PWD, the consequences would be enormous;the way how minimum harmonisation directives must be interpreted.
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Underlines that the ECJ is the ultimate interpreter of the PWD and all other EC legislation and that the ECJ takes into account in particular the objective and the legal base in the Treaty when interpreting EC legislation;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Recalls that the PWD seeks to bring about the freedom to provide services, and that it has to be interpreted, like all directives adopted on an internal market legal basis, in the light of the rules of the Treaty on the freedom to provide services as interpreted by the ECJ, whilst taking into account other objectives pursued by EC legislation, such as social policy objectives;
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. RegretNotes that the social considerations referred to in Articles 26 and 27 in Directive 2004/18, do not include terms and conditions of employment which go beyond the mandatory rules for minimum protectionare not compatible with EC law, and in particular with the PWD;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is of the opinion that the limited legal basis of free movement of the PWD has led the ECJ to interpret the PWD in this way, creating an explicit invitation to unfair competition on wages and working conditions driving them downwards, which is in clear contradiction to the stated aim ofUnderlines that the PWD seeks in particular to bring about the freedom to provide services, while guaranteeing the adequate protection of workers posted on a temporary basis for the purpose of providing services in another Member States; stresses that the effect of the Laval judgement is surely to reinforce the message that posted workers must be afforded the minimum protection granted by the Directive, including the minimum pay rate; this is because, as emphasized by the ECJ in the Laval case, the PWD (seeks to ensure a climate of fair competition) and the objective of the EU as established in the Treaty (improvement of living and working conditions); therefo between national undertakings and undertakings which provide services on a temporary basis insofar as it require,s the legal basis of the PWD must be broadened to include a reference to the free movement of workersatter to afford their workers the mandatory rules of ,minimum protection laid down in the host Member State;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that the current situation could lead to a situation where workers in host countries will be pressured by low wage competition; this, in turn, could lead to xenophobia and counterproductive anUnderlines that one of the main purposes of the European Union is to create an internal market for services; is of the conviction that the citizens in the European Union welcome European integration; firmly underlines that xenophobic behaviour is a marginal phenomenon which should be strongly discouragerd against the EUnd combated;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Regrets that the ECJ fails to consider ILO convention 94, and fears that the ECJ judgement in Rüffert may impede the ratification of ILO 94; this would be counter to the further development of social clauses in public procurement regulations, which is an aim of the Public procurement directive 2004Underlines that Member States can only implement international conventions that are in line with EC legislation;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Underlines that the ECJ rulings in the cases of Viking, Laval and Rüffert do not necessitate a change of EC legislation; a call for a change of legislation after each ECJ ruling will cause imbalance in the division of the democratic powers within, and principles of, the European Union;
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Therefore calls on the Commission to review the PWD and consider the following issues: - a new legal basis for the PWD to better protect workers; workers posted within the framework of services should be regarded as using the right of freedom of movement of workers and not the free movement of services; - a possibility in the Directive for Member States to refer in law or collective agreements to the 'habitual wages' applicable in the place of work in the host country as defined in the ILO 94 and not only ‘minimum’ rates of pay; - a limit to the period of time during which workers can be considered as being 'posted' to a Member State other than the Member State of their ordinary place of work in the framework of services; after that period the rules on free movement of workers should apply, i.e. host country rules with regard to wages and working conditions have full application; - an even clearer expression that the Directive and other EU legislation do not prohibit: - ensure that the PWD is correctly implemented and applied in all Member States; - intensify work with Member States with a view to enhance cooperation between competent national authorities of different Member States and in particular to set up an electronic system for exchange of information which could enable Member States and trade unions from demanding more favourable conditions for the worker; and - the recognition of a wider range of methods of organizing labour markets than those currently covered by Article 3(8)in particular to combat abuses more effectively;
Amendment 287 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Considers that Parliament, the Council and the Commission should adopt measures to combat abuses, in particular regarding activities of those "letterbox- companies, undertakings" which are not engaged in any genuine and meaningfuleffective business in the country of origin butestablishment but which have been created, sometimes even directly by the main contractor in the host country, for the sole purpose of offering ‘services’ to the host country, to avoidcarrying out business in the host country, in order to circumvent the full application of host country rules and regulations especially with regard to wages and working conditions;
Amendment 293 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25