91 Amendments of Georgios TOUSSAS
Amendment 39 #
2011/0239(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 a (new)
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) Modern technological and scientific advances on board vessels stand in contrast to the low standards of training for seafarers, which has for a number of years consisted of pro forma instruction for a cheap maritime workforce, the concern being increased profits for maritime business groups.
Amendment 40 #
2011/0239(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 b (new)
Recital 4 b (new)
(4b) Improved training for seafarers must include all specialist categories among crew members and officers and cover proper theoretical and practical instruction in the safety of human life at sea.
Amendment 41 #
2011/0239(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 c (new)
Recital 4 c (new)
(4c) Rules concerning the manning and construction of vessels present dangers in terms of the safety of human life at sea and environmental protection. Reductions in manning levels and in loading and unloading times, coupled with increased vessel speed, have greatly increased the workload for seafarers.
Amendment 42 #
2011/0239(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 d (new)
Recital 4 d (new)
(4d) The dangers are all the greater on cruise ships, because of the refusal of ship owners to include on crew manifests the general services personnel, that is to say, crew members responsible for accommodation, making up three- quarters of the crew on cruise ships. In this way, it is possible for ship owners to avoid paying wages on the basis of the collective agreement of the ship’s flag state and instead to pay the extremely low wages of the countries of origin of these crew members, who, in many cases, are forced to rely on passenger tips as their sole source of income. In this way, crew members with no proper maritime training who provide general services on board are falling victim to the most cynical exploitation by international human traffickers and cruise ship business groups. Furthermore, this poses an enormous danger to the safety of the lives of passengers and crew, as shown by the recent disastrous incidents involving the ‘Costa Concordia’ and ‘Costa Allegra’ cruise ships, both belonging to ‘Costa Cruises’, a subsidiary of the Anglo- American ‘Carnival’ corporation.
Amendment 43 #
2011/0239(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 e (new)
Recital 4 e (new)
(4e) Improvement of maritime training on cruise ships must be accompanied by scientifically documented changes in vessel design so as to improve vessel safety and prevent accidents at sea.
Amendment 44 #
2011/0239(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) At the Manila Conference the State- parties intended, amongst others, to set objective limits to the exceptions to the minimum rest hours for watchkeeping personnel and seafarers with designated safety, security and prevention of pollution related tasks. Also such new provisions should be integrated into EUthe law. However, they should respect the provisions on hours of rest applicable to seafarers under Council Directives 1999/63/EC of 21 June 1999 and 199910/13/EC of 16 February 2009. Furthermore, the faculty of authorising exceptions should be limited in terms of maximum duration, frequency and scope. Provisions to this effect should be introduced in the directive of the EU Member States. Compulsory rest hours must apply not only to watch-keeping personnel but to the entire crew and all specialist categories of seafarers, including deck hands, engine-room hands and personnel providing general services, since all members of the ship’s crew have responsibilities related to protection, safety, pollution prevention and fire- fighting and evacuation drill. Furthermore, the faculty of authorising exceptions should be limited in terms of maximum duration, frequency and scope. Provisions to this effect should be introduced in the directive. Increased manning levels in accordance with actual needs will help to ensure strict adherence to and implementation of international conventions concerning hours of work and rest for seafarers.
Amendment 52 #
2011/0239(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 12
Article 1 – point 12
Directive 2008/106/ΕC
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Article 15 – paragraph 4
(a) a minimum of 106 hours of rest in any 24-hour period; and
Amendment 53 #
2011/0239(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 12
Article 1 – point 12
Directive 2008/106/EC
Article 15 – paragraph 4
Article 15 – paragraph 4
(b) 77112 hours in any 7-day period.
Amendment 54 #
2011/0239(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 12
Article 1 – point 12
Directive 2008/106/ΕC
Article 15 – paragraph 5
Article 15 – paragraph 5
5. The hours of rest may be divided into no more than two periods, oneeach of which shall be at least 68 hours in length, and the intervals between consecutive periods of rest shall not exceed 148 hours.
Amendment 55 #
2011/0239(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 12
Article 1 – point 12
Directive 2008/106/ΕC
Article 15 – paragraph 6
Article 15 – paragraph 6
6. The requirements for rest periods laid down in paragraphs 4 and 5 need not be maintmay be wainved only in the case of an emergency or drill or in other overriding operational conditions. Musters, fire-fighting and lifeboat drills, and drills prescribed by national laws and regulations and by international instruments, shall be conducted in a manner that minimizes the disturbance of rest periods and does not induce fatigue.
Amendment 59 #
2011/0239(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 12
Article 1 – point 12
Directive 2008/106/ΕC
Article 15 – paragraph 10
Article 15 – paragraph 10
10. Notwithstanding the rules laid down in paragraphs 3 to 9, the master of a ship shall be entitled to require a seafarcrew member to perform any hours of work necessary for the immediatonly in cases of immediate danger to the safety of the ship, persons on board or cargo, or for the purpose of giving assistance to other ships or persons in distress at sea. Accordingly, the master may suspend the schedule of hours of rest and require a seafarer to perform any hours of work necessary until the danger is over and the normal situation has been restored. As soon as practicable after the normal situation has been restored, the master shall ensure that any seafarers who have performed work in a scheduled rest period are provided with an adequate period of rest.
Amendment 60 #
2011/0239(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 12
Article 1 – point 12
Amendment 64 #
2011/0239(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 12
Article 1 – point 12
Directive 2008/106/EC
Article 15 – paragraph 12
Article 15 – paragraph 12
Amendment 66 #
2011/0239(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 12
Article 1 – point 12
Amendment 20 #
2011/0152(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Directive 2004/40/EC should be repealed and more appropriate and proportionate measures protecting workers from the risks associated with electromagnetic fields should be introduced. However, presently it does not address the long-term effects, including possible carcinogenic effects of exposure to time- varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, for which there is currently no conclusive scientific evidence establishing a causal relationship. The present measures should be intended not only to ensure the health and safety of each worker on an individual basis, but also to create a minimum basis of protection for all Union workers, while reducing possible distortions of competition. The Commission and the Member States should step up research and the collection of data on the long-term effects of exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields. The Commission should assess the scientific evidence for long-term effects within 5 years after publication of this Directive in the Official Journal of the European Union and present a proposal for its review in order to include the protection of workers health and safety against such long-term effects.
Amendment 28 #
2011/0152(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) A system including exposure limit values, orientation values and action values, wherever applicable, should be seen as a means to facilitate the provision of a high level of protection against the established adverse health effects that may result from exposure to electromagnetic fields. But such a system may conflict with specific conditions in certain activities, such as medical procedures using magnetic resonance techniques or military operations where interoperability is required and where internationally accepted standards providing an equivalent protection of workers subject to specific exposure situations are already in place. It is therefore necessary to take these particular conditions into account.
Amendment 34 #
2011/0152(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 3
Article 1 – paragraph 3
Amendment 70 #
2011/0152(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Amendment 81 #
2011/0152(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 5
Article 3 – paragraph 5
5. By way of derogation, paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to the armed forces in Member States where an equivalent and more specific protection system such as NATO standard STANAG 2345 is already in place and implemented. However, Member States shall ensure that health surveillance in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 89/391/EEC and Article 8 of this Directive is effectively implemented. Member States shall inform the Commission of the existence and effective implementation of such protection systems when notifying the transposition of the provisions of this Directive into national legislation in accordance with Article 14.
Amendment 86 #
2011/0152(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 6
Article 3 – paragraph 6
6. Without prejudice to paragraphs 4 and 5, workers may not be exposed above the exposure limit values for health effects. For specific situations where these values may temporarily be exceeded, Member States may put in place a system authorising work under controlled conditions and on the basis of a comprehensive risk assessment setting out the actual exposure levels and their likelihood and comparing them to the exposure limit values defined in Annexes II and III. Such specific situations shall be reported to the Commission in the report referred to in Article 17a of Directive 89/391/EEC.
Amendment 101 #
2011/0152(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Amendment 149 #
2011/0152(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4
Article 5 – paragraph 4
4. In any event, workers shall not be exposed above the exposure limit values for health effects unless the conditions under Article 3(6) are fulfilled. If, despite the measures taken by the employer to comply with this Directive, the exposure limit values for health effects are exceeded, the employer shall take immediate action to reduce exposure below these exposure limit values. The employer shall identify the reasons why the exposure limit values for health effects have been exceeded, and shall amend the protection and prevention measures accordingly in order to prevent them being exceeded again.
Amendment 185 #
2011/0152(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 14
Article 14
The report to be established in accordance to Article 17(a) of Directive 89/391/EEC shall notably report on the effectiveness of the Directive in reducing exposure to electromagnetic fields and the percentage of workplaces that required corrective action. The Commission shall assess the scientific evidence for long-term effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields within 5 years after the publication of this Directive in the Official Journal of the European Union and submit a proposal for its review in order to include the protection of workers health and safety against such long-term effects.
Amendment 11 #
2009/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesRejects the policy, strategic guidelines and proposals contained in the Communication from the Commission on maritime transport policy until 2018, because their aim is to increase competition and the profits of the shipping monopolies and of capital generally, at the expense of the workers and the needs of the working class;
Amendment 13 #
2009/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that the EU's maritime policy shouldcapitalist economic crisis which followed the previous boom period (September 2003 – July 2008) – a period of astronomical profits without historical precedent for ship owners – accelerated the tendency towards concentration and centralisation of capital in the maritime transport sector; that the anaemic and fragile recovery of the EU economy, in combination with surplus tonnage, intensifies intra-Union and international competition in maritime transport among the monopoly business groups, with painful consequences for dock workers and, generally, for workers in related sectors; also takes account of the fact that the maritime industry faces competition not only within the Community but above all globally; European shipping companies, while having their actual headquarters in, and managing their entire commercial fleets from, EU Member States, also operate as offshore companies, registering 60-80% of their ships in third countries under ‘flags of convenience’ and in ‘second registers’, thus securing tax havens while ruthlessly exploiting dock workers and increasing their profits. By these unacceptable means, the same European ship owners are making use of shipping registers in third countries, and the only obligation for the offshore companies which they set up in those countries is to keep a PO box at a post office or bank and to bring in USD 10-50 000 in foreign exchange annually. Ship owners use this method to secure new privileges, state subsidies, tax exemptions, reductions in ships’ complements, abolition of employer contributions to dock workers’ insurance funds, etc.;
Amendment 17 #
2009/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on EU Member States therefore to encourage the use of their flag, for example by providing fiscal facilities such as a tonnage tax and reduced taxation of seafarerabolish the outrageous tax exemptions and scandalous privileges enjoyed by shipping companies;
Amendment 20 #
2009/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 29 #
2009/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. WelcomesTakes account of the initiatives by Member States and the Commission to make maritime occupations more attractive to young EU citizens; advocates, to this end, linking work and multiannual training in the maritime sector; advocates also tin relation to the seafaring profession; notes that EU and national legislation follows the ship owners’ desire for a cheap dock workforce, and promotes intensification of labour and exhausting working hours which, under EU legislation, may be as high as 72 hours a week, and the reduction of ships’ complements and downgrading and reduction of inspections; notes that this policy hats more information on the sector be provided at schools and that more traineeships be made availableade the protection of human life at sea even more precarious, with the failure to adopt strict safety measures and rules, and increases the risks to the environment;
Amendment 38 #
2009/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that seafarers from third countries must comply with satisfactory training requirements and calls on ship owners and national inspectorates to guarantee and enforce this, where necessary assisted by EMSA; Notes with great concern that the policy of increasing the profitability of ship- owning business groups results in a drastic reduction in dock workers from EU Member States, with a corresponding increase in the number of dock workers from third countries who work under deplorable conditions for very low wages; emphasises that while the number and tonnage of European shipping companies’ vessels have increased, the mass expulsion of dock workers from EU Member States, and their replacement with a cheaper maritime workforce without wage, labour or social rights, continues; this tendency to reduce labour costs is, according to the EU’s Common Maritime Policy and reports by international organisations, a crucial factor for enhancing the competitiveness and profitability of European shipping companies; for this reason, the expulsion of crews and officers from EU Member States continues with greater intensity; soaring unemployment, drastic curtailment of social benefits and the dire financial state of dock workers’ insurance funds have dealt a severe blow to the standard of living of dock workers’ families;
Amendment 43 #
2009/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Underlines that a reasonable balance between the employment conditions of EU seafare need for immediate ratification, and incorporation into the Member States’ national law, of the Maritime Labour Convention ratified by the ILO General Conference on 23 February 2006, which sets the minimum requirements for securing the basic rights of dock workers; and the competitiveness of the European fleet should be found in order to facilitate labour mobility in the maritime industries throughout Europe and to ensure a fully functioning internal market without barriers and without unjustified restrictions to provide service particularly important issue is the incorporation into national legislation of Part B of the Convention, which is presented as non-mandatory, and the enforcement of International Convention 145 on continuous employment for dock workers, as well as the adoption of well- considered demands made by the dock workers’ movement, such as an increase in ships’ complements, the adoption of the 7-hour day and 5-day, 35-hour week, and the rule on crew rotation (15 days on board and 15 days ashore for crews of vessels on internal voyages, and 4 months and 4 months respectively for crews of vessels on international voyages); underlines the need to enforce the protection rules that apply to seconded workers (minimum wage, annual leave, etc.) and dock workers;
Amendment 46 #
2009/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Stresses that the maritime training based on the STCW International Convention was used to downgrade maritime training and replace it with an ad hoc, superficial form of training, and to encourage the influx of a cheaper workforce from third countries, and that it has served only to increase the profits of the maritime business groups and private training companies; emphasises the need to substantially upgrade maritime training with the adoption of an international convention on crews and officers of ships, within the IMO framework, and also the need to recognise intermediate and higher maritime training as an equivalent level of training for related sectors on land;
Amendment 49 #
2009/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Amendment 78 #
2009/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21 a. Notes with great concern that EU policy on the shipbuilding industry, and on privatisation of ports and port services, strengthens monopoly business groups in shipping and related sectors, inflicting a serious blow to workers;
Amendment 80 #
2009/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on national inspectoraEmphasises that shipworthiness inspections by shipping registers and other national authorities to cooperate more closely in exchanging data on vesselsauthorised private companies have proven ineffective; notes, with concern, that superannuated, under-maintained vessels carry so-called certificates of shipworthiness and remain in operation, posing a risk to human life at sea and to their cargoes, so as to reduce regulatory pressure but environment; particularly in the Mediterranean, following enforcement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 and the abolition of cabotage, the number of superannuated, under-maintained, high-risk vessels has increased; underlines that to increase their effectiveness of, inspections; must be rigorous, frequent and exhaustively thorough;
Amendment 82 #
2009/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Is aware ofthat the danger of piracy on the high seas cand calls on all ship owners to cooperate with government initiatives such as Atnot be combated by military means or with interventions at the expense of the sovereignty of third countries, but only by combating the social anta whd economich can protect them against piracyuses – especially poverty, decline and the imperialist wars that cause and sustain it;
Amendment 1 #
2008/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas Israel is the most important aviation market in the Middle East with a strong growth potential, also considering its strategic position as a bridge between Europe and the Middle Eahaving regard to the criminal war which the Israeli Government has launched against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli army's slaughter of thousands of Palestinians, among them hundreds of children and women, the bombing and total destruction of public and civil infrastructure, and the Israeli army's shelling of hospitals, schools and UN buildings, which UN officials have described as war crimes and crimes against humanity; having regard also to the Israeli Government's inhuman, longst and towards regions which are further awaying blockade of the Gaza Strip, which has caused a vast humanitarian disaster in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel,
Amendment 2 #
2008/2136(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesCalls on the Council and the cCommencement ofission immediately to halt and suspend the negotiations with Israel on a comprehensive air transport agreement;
Amendment 2 #
2008/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)
Recital -A (new)
-A. whereas the debate on port services at European Union level is of great importance, as is well demonstrated by the European Parliament’s rejection of two relevant proposals for directives1 in 2003 and 2006;
Amendment 9 #
2008/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Amendment 10 #
2008/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. CommendRejects the Commission on the’s approach it took when drawing up the communication, particularly the extensive process of consultationn its communication because it indirectly seeks to promote the deregulation of port services at EU and Member State level;
Amendment 13 #
2008/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points to the crucialstrategic importance of the ports sector tofor the European Union from the economic, commercial, social, environmental and strategic points of view; economic and social development, the defence and sovereignty of each Member State and considers, therefore, that the ports should constitute public property; expresses its categorical opposition to any form of concession for any port operation to private individuals as absolutely incompatible with the public interest;
Amendment 15 #
2008/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3a (new)
Paragraph 3a (new)
3a. Rejects any fresh attempt to liberalise port services at European Union level, for example by applying internal market competition rules (in particular as regards ‘public financing’, ‘port concessions’, ‘technical-nautical services’ and ‘cargo handling services’) to what is a strategic public service in various Member States;
Amendment 66 #
2008/2007(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23a (new)
Paragraph 23a (new)
23a. Urges that initiatives be taken to combat precarious conditions and the risks of accidents in the sector and to guarantee and ensure respect for the rights of port workers, particularly as regards employment with rights, fair pay and decent working conditions, social protection, collective agreements, trade union rights and professional training;
Amendment 6 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
–
–
The Committee on Transport and Tourism urges the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, as the committee responsible, to propose that the Commission proposal be rejected
Amendment 8 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities12 establishes minimum requirements in relation to the organisation of working time in order to improve the health and safety protection of persons performing mobile road transport activities, to improve road safety and to align conditions of competition. This directive already establishes 'minimum requirements', and its transposition may not result in a lower level of protection for workers or less compliance with more favourable conditions in individual Member States resulting from general employment legislation or collective agreements;
Amendment 11 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In the light of the Commission report and the impact assessment, self-employed drivers should be excluded from the scope of Directive 2002/15/ECt is also in the general interest that the rules governing working time and driving and rest periods should apply equally to all professional drivers, including self-employed drivers, in order to ensure the safety of these professionals and road safety.
Amendment 14 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Nevertheless, iIt is desirable that Member States continue to alert self- employed drivers of the adverse effects on health and safety as well as of negative impacts on road safety caused by excessively long working hours, inadequate rest or disruptive working patterns. similarly, it is important that Member States should make efforts to combat false self-employed work and ensure that workers do not have recourse to precarious forms of contracting for permanent work;
Amendment 17 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point -1 (new)
Article 1 – point -1 (new)
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 1
Article 1
(-1) Article 1 reads as follows: The purpose of this directive shall be to establish minimum requirements in relation to the organisation of working time in order to improve health and safety protection of professionals performing mobile road transport activities, in particular as regards break times, rest times and periods of availability - without prejudice to their wages - and to improve road safety, with the resultant alignment of conditions of competition.
Amendment 18 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive– amending act
–
–
The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal.
Amendment 20 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
'1. The Directive shall apply to mobile workers, as defined in Article 3(d) of this Directive, employed by undertakings established in a Member State, participating in road transport activities covered by Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 or, failing that, by the AETR Agreement.'
Amendment 22 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
This Directive shall also apply to mobile workers as defined in the second sentence of Article 3(d)self-employed drivers.
Amendment 23 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 3
Article 3
Amendment 25 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 2 – point a a (new)
Article 1 – point 2 – point a a (new)
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 3 – point b – indent 2 a (new)
Article 3 – point b – indent 2 a (new)
(a-A) The following paragraph is inserted: 'This period should be considered for wage purposes.'
Amendment 33 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 2 – point d a (new)
Article 1 – point 2 – point d a (new)
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 3 – point h
Article 3 – point h
(d-A) A subparagraph (h) shall read as follows: '(h) 'The night period' is a period defined in national legislation between 8 p.m. and 7 a.m.;'
Amendment 38 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
The following paragraph is inserted: 1-A. 'This period shall be taken into account for the purposes of wages.'
Amendment 39 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 5
Article 1 – point 5
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
The following paragraph is added: 1-A. 'This period shall be taken into account for wage purposes.'
Amendment 41 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 11a – paragraph 1
Article 11a – paragraph 1
(1) Member States shall organise a system of appropriate and regular monitoring and controls in order to guarantee the correct and consistent transposition and implementation of the rules contained in this Directive. They shall ensure that the national bodies responsible for enforcement of the Directive have an adequate number of qualified inspectors and shall take whatever measures are appropriate. This directive already establishes 'minimum requirements', and its transposition may not result in a lower level of protection for workers or less compliance with more favourable conditions in individual Member States resulting from general employment legislation or collective agreements;
Amendment 42 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 11a – paragraph 3
Article 11a – paragraph 3
(3) Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that transport undertakings and mobile workers have access to information, assistance and advice in the field of working time rules and work organisation. The Member States shall endeavour to combat false self- employed work and to ensure that workers do not have recourse to forms of precarious contracting in the case of permanent work;
Amendment 22 #
Amendment 24 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Citation 1
Citation 1
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 95s 42, 152 and 308 thereof,
Amendment 26 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Given that that the conditions for recourse to Article 95 of the Treaty as a legal basis are not fulfilled, the Community legislature shall rely on thise same legal basis even when public health protection is a decisive factor in the choices made; in this respect Article 95(3) of the Treaty explicitly requires that, in achieving harmonisation, a high level of protection of human health should be guaranteed taking account in particular of any new development based on scientific factsas Regulation 883/2004/EC on the coordination of social security systems, and also shall take Article 152 of the Treaty into account.
Amendment 33 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Some issues related to cross-border healthcare, in particular reimbursement of healthcare provided in a Member State other than that in which the recipient of the care is resident, have been already addressed by the Court of Justice. As healthcare wasAs health care was rightfully excluded from the scope of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market it is still important to address these issues in a specific Community legal instrufor Member States to ensure the accessibility of their respective public health care systems for patients and to continue concluding bilateral agreements in order to achieve a more general and effective application of principles developed by the Court of Jusor improve cooperation which promotes and benefits the rights of patients for high quality health care and treatment according to Article on a case by case basis152 of the EC Treaty.
Amendment 34 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) This directive aims to establish a general framework forcomplement Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 and its successor Regulation(EC) 883/2004 with regard to the provision of safe, high quality and efficient cross-border healthcare in the Community and to ensure patients mobility and freedom to provide healthcarethe application of patients' rights in the framework of patients mobility and a high level of protection of health, whilst fully respecting the responsibilities of the Member States for the definition of social security benefits related to health and the organisation and delivery of healthcare and medical care and social security benefits in particular for sickness.
Amendment 41 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
Amendment 42 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
Amendment 44 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
Amendment 45 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Recital 23
Amendment 47 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
Recital 26
Amendment 55 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Realising the potential of the internal market for cCross-border healthcare requires cooperation between providers, purchasers and regulators of different Member States at national, regional or local level in order to ensure safe, high quality and efficient care across borders. This is particularly the case for cooperation in border regions, where cross-border provision of services may be the most efficient way of organising health services for the local populations, but where achieving such cross-border provision on a sustained basis requires cooperation between the health systems of different Member States. Such cooperation may concern joint planning, mutual recognition or adaptation of procedures or standards, interoperability of respective national information and communication technology systems, practical mechanisms to ensure continuity of care or practical facilitating of cross- border provision of healthcare by health professionals on a temporary or occasional basis. Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications stipulates that free provision of services of a temporary or occasional nature, including services provided by health professionals, in another Member State should not, subject to specific provisions of Community law, be restricted for any reason relating to professional qualifications. This Directive shouldall be without prejudice to those provisions of Directive 2005/36/EC.
Amendment 58 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1
Article 1
This Directive establishes a general framework foraims at complementing the existing framework on the coordination of social security systems (Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 and its successor Regulation (EC) 883/2004) with a view to the application of patients' rights in the context of the provision of safe, high quality and efficient cross-border healthcare.
Amendment 70 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Amendment 99 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Subject to the provisions of this Directive, in particular Articles 76, 87 and 9, the Member State of affiliation shall ensure that insured persons travelling to another Member State with the purpose of receiving healthcare there or seeking to receive healthcare provided in another Member State, will not be prevented from receiving healthcare provided in another Member State where the treatment in question is among the benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State of affiliation to which the insured person is entitled. The Member State of affiliation shall reimburse the costs to the insured person, which would have been paid for by its statutory social security system had the same or similar healthcare been provided in its territory. In any event, it is for the Member State of affiliation to determine the healthcare that is paid f, according to the same mechanisms as provided for by Regulation (EEC)1408/71 and its successor rRegardless of where it is providedulation (EC) 883/2004.
Amendment 103 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. The costs of healthcare provided Member States must ensure that physicians and service providers which are working anos contract partners of their Member State shall be reimbursed by the Member State of affiliation in accordance with the provisions of this Directive up to the level of costs that would have been assumed had the same or similar healthcare been provided in the Member State of affiliation, without exceeding the actual costs of healthcare receivedrespective national health systems or statutory social security systems are obliged to accept the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC), E-112 form etc. and treat patients showing their EHIC on the same conditions as stipulated by Regulation (EEC)1408/71 and its successor Regulation (EC) 883/2004 Member States must oblige service providers to post an EHIC symbol in the lobby of the service provider (e.g. in a similar way to credit cards in shops and restaurants) to indicate that the EHIC is accepted there in line with those Regulations.
Amendment 107 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The Member State of affiliation may impose on a patient seeking healthcare provided in another Member State, the same conditions, criteria of eligibility and regulatory and administrative formalities for receiving healthcare and reimbursement of healthcare costs as it would impose if the same s must ensure that physicians and service providers which are working as contract partners of their respective national health systems or statutory social security systems are prohibited from treating patients from another Member State on a private basis or demanding upfront cash payments from them, in such cases that the patient can prove her or his status as an insured person of the respective statutory similar healthcare was provided in its territory, in soocial security system of the respective Member State of affiliation by virtue of, faor as they are neither discriminatory nor an obstacle to freedom of movement of personsexample, the European Health Insurance Card, and theE-112 form..
Amendment 113 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Article 6 – paragraph 5
5. Patients travelling to another Member State with the purpose of receiving healthcare therereceiving healthcare in a Member State other than their Member State of affiliation or seeking to receive healthcare provided in another Member State shall be guaranteed access to their medical records, in conformity with national measures implementing Community provisions on the protection of personal data, in particular Directives 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC.
Amendment 119 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8
Article 8
Amendment 160 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. The Member State of affiliation shall ensure that administrative procedures regarding the use of healthcare in another Member State related to any prior authorisation referred to in Article 8(3), reimbursement.22.1 c) and Art. 22.2 of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71, coverage of costs of healthcare incurred in another Member State and other conditions and formalities referred to in Article 6(31), are based on objective, non- discriminatory criteria which are published in advance, and which are necessary and proportionate to the objective to be achieved. In any event, an insured person shall always be granted the authorisation pursuant to Regulations on coordination of social security referred to in Art. 3.1 f) whenever the conditions of Art.22.1 c) and Art. 22.2 of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 are met.
Amendment 162 #
2008/0142(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall specify in advance and in a transparent way the criteria for refusal of the prior authorisation referred to in Article 8(3).
Amendment 10 #
2007/2264(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 11 #
2007/2264(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Amendment 19 #
2004/0209(COD)
Τhe European Parliament rejects the Council common position.
Amendment 24 #
2004/0209(COD)
Recital 7
(7) There is a need to strengthen the protection of workers' health and safety and for greater flexibility in organising working time, particularly with regard to on-satisfy their needs and abilities thanks to the major scientific and technicall time and, more specifically, inactive periods during on-call time, and also to strike a new balance between reconciling work and family life on the onbreakthroughs - achieved through the strenuous efforts of the workers themselves - with a view to reducing working hours and increasing leisure time hand and more flexible organisation of working time on the otherfree time accordingly and consolidating workers' rights.
Amendment 31 #
2004/0209(COD)
Article 1 – point 1
Directive 2003/88/EC
Article 2 – paragraph 1a
Article 2 – paragraph 1a
"1a. "on-call time" means any period during which the worker has the obligation to be available at the workplace or away from it in order to intervene, at the employer's request, to carry out his activity or duties;"
Amendment 32 #
2004/0209(COD)
Article 1 – point 1
Directive 2003/88/EC
Article 2 – paragraph 1c
Article 2 – paragraph 1c
Amendment 36 #
2004/0209(COD)
Article 1 – point 2
Directive 2003/88/EC
Article 2a
Article 2a
Amendment 44 #
2004/0209(COD)
Article 1 – point 2
Directive 2003/88/EC
Article 2b
Article 2b
The Member States shall encourage the social partners at the appropriate level, without prejudice to their autonomy, to conclude agreements aimed at improving the reconciliation of work and family life. The Member States shall ensure, without prejudice to Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community* and in consultation with the social partners, that employers inform workers in due time ofsure that employers cannot make any substantial changes in the pattern or organisation of their working time. Taking into acc withount workers' needs for flexibility inthe agreement of their working hours and patterns, the Member States shall, in accordance with national practices, also encourage employers to examine requests for changes to such working hours and patterns, subject to business needs, and to both employers' and workers' needs for flexibilityas laid down by national and sectoral general collective agreements.
Amendment 45 #
2004/0209(COD)
Article 1 – point 2 a (new)
Directive 2003/88/EC
Article 3
Article 3
(2α) Article 3 shall be amended as follows: "Article 3 DAILY REST Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that every worker is entitled to a minimum daily rest period of 17 consecutive hours per 24-hour period.
Amendment 46 #
2004/0209(COD)
Article 1 – point 2 b (new)
Directive 2003/88/EC
Article 5
Article 5
(2b) Article 5 shall be replaced by the following: "Article 5 Weekly rest period Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, per seven-day period, every worker is entitled to a minimum uninterrupted rest period of 48 hours plus the 17 hours' daily rest period referred to in Article 3.
Amendment 49 #
2004/0209(COD)
Article 1 – point 2 c (new)
Directive 2003/88/EC
Article 6
Article 6
(2c) Article 6 shall be replaced by the following: "Article 6 Maximum weekly working time 1. The Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that in keeping with the need to protect the safety and health of workers: α) the period of weekly working time is limited by means of laws, regulations or administrative provisions or by collective agreement; b) the average working time for each seven-day period, does not exceed 35 hours. 2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that those working more than the maximum number of hours specified in Articles 3, 5 and 6 are given compensation for overtime by their employer in accordance with the terms and conditions of national laws or collective agreements, where the provisions thereof are more favourable."
Amendment 56 #
2004/0209(COD)
Article 1 – point 3 − point d
Directive 2003/88/EC
Article 17 – paragraph 5
Article 17 – paragraph 5
(d) paragraph 5 shall be amended as follows: (i) the first subparagraph shall be replaced by the following: "5. In accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article, derogations may be made from Article 6 in the case of doctors in training, in accordance with the provisions set out in the second to the sixth subparagraphs of this paragraph."; (ii) the last subparagraph shall be deleted.
Amendment 59 #
2004/0209(COD)
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 2003/88/EC
Article 22
Article 22
(6) Article 22 shall be replaced by the following: "Article 22 Miscellaneous provisions 1. Although the general principle is that the maximum weekly working time in the European Union is 48 hours and that in practice it is an exception for workers in the Union to work longer, Member States may decide not to apply Article 6 provided that they take the necessary measures to ensure the effective protection of the safety and health of workers. Implementation of this option, however, shall be expressly laid down by a collective agreement or an agreement between the social partners at the appropriate level or by national law following consultation of the social partners at the appropriate level. 2. In any event, Member States wishing to make use of this option shall take the necessary measures to ensure that: (a) no employer requires a worker to work more than 48 hours over a seven-day period, calculated as an average for the reference period referred to in Article 16(b), unless he has first obtained the worker's agreement to perform such work. This agreement shall be valid for a period not exceeding one year and shall be renewable; (b) no worker shall be subjected to any detriment by his employer because he is not willing to give his agreement to perform such work or because he has withdrawn his agreement for any reason; (c) an agreement given at: (i) the time of the signature of the individual employment contract; or (ii) during the first four weeks of the employment relationship shall be null and void; (d) no worker who has given an agreement under this Article shall, over a period of seven days, work more than: (i) 60 hours, calculated as an average over a period of three months, unless otherwise provided for in a collective agreement or an agreement between the social partners; or (ii) 65 hours, calculated as an average over a period of three months, in the absence of a collective agreement and when the inactive part of on-call time is regarded as working time in accordance with Article 2a; (e) every worker shall be entitled to withdraw, with immediate effect, his agreement to perform such work during the first six months after signature of a valid agreement or during and up to three months after the probation period specified in his contract is completed, whichever is longer, by informing his employer in due time in writing that he is doing so. Thereafter, the employer may require the worker to give, in writing, advance notice thereof, which shall not exceed two months in duration; (f) the employer keeps up-to-date records of all workers who carry out such work and adequate records for establishing that the provisions of this Directive are complied with; (g) the records are placed at the disposal of the competent authorities, which may, for reasons connected with the safety and/or health of workers, prohibit or restrict the possibility of exceeding the maximum weekly working time; (h) the employer provides the competent authorities at their request with information on cases in which agreement has been given by workers to work for more than 48 hours over a period of seven days, calculated as an average for the reference period referred to in Article 16(b), and adequate records for establishing that the provisions of this Directive are complied with. 3. Subject to compliance with the general principles relating to the protection of the safety and health of workers, where a worker is employed by the same employer for a period or periods that do not exceed ten weeks in total over a period of twelve months, the provisions of paragraph 2(c)(ii) and (d) shall not apply."deleted.