26 Amendments of Katrin SAKS related to 2008/2085(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 a (new)
Citation 19 a (new)
- having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 12 June 2003, Case C- 112/00 – Schmidberger
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. Whereas the ECJ recognizes the right to take collective action and free movement of workers as fundamental rights; that is anese rights will also become integral part of the general principles of Community law; this right will also become primary law with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. Whereas the Commission’s report on industrial relations in Europe 2006 shows that highly developed collective bargaining has a positive influence on social inclusion while the findings of comparative studies are relatively modest on the impact of industrial relations on growth and economic performance,
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. Whereas the objective of the PWD –- the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of persons and services and to provide for a climate of fair competition and measures guaranteeing respect for the rights of workers – is more important than ever; in an economic era in which transnational provision of services is expanding, the PWD is expected to play a key-role in protecting the workers concerned, while respecting the framework of labour law and industrial relations of Member States,
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. Whereas the ECJ in both the Laval and Rüffert cases made a completely different interpretation of European legislation than the advocate generalindicated that the posting of workers directive has not been properly implemented in respectively Sweden and Germany, therefore unequal treatment of workers was possible,
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. Whereas the ECJ in the Viking case introduces a horizontal direct effect of Articles 43 and 49 which can be used by employers and service providers to challenge collective agreements and industrial actions with a cross-border effect; the autonomy for collective bargaining from competition rules is thereby not extended to the field of free movement with a risk that industrial relations in the Member States will be put under legal scrutiny; consequently, this new uncertainty in industrial relations could result in a “flood” of cases to the ECJhas also indicated that the posting of workers directive should be properly implemented,
Amendment 73 #
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 bal, which is accompancied againstnd complemented by fundamental rights and the possibility for governments and trade unions to ensure non-discrimination and equal treatment;
Amendment 119 #
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 restored;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines the importance of not allowing the verdicts to negatively effectfurther promoting 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 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Regrets that still several Member States have not properly implemented the posting of workers directive, which in some cases may result in unequal treatment of posted workers;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Regrets thatWelcomes all conditions imposoffered ton foreign employeres above minimum levels are seen as obstacles to free movement,, especially if employees do not already receive more favourable conditions in the country of origin;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises that the PWD as interpreted by the ECJ woulddoes not prevent to 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 non-discrimination which is established in the Treaty especially with regard to the mobility of workers only if the PWD is properly implemented in all Member States of the European Union;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 196 #
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 uUnfair competition on wages and working conditions driving them downwards, which is in clear contradiction to the stated aim of the PWD (to ensure a climate of fair competition) and the objective of the EU as established in the Treaty (improvement of living and working conditions); therefore, the legal basis of the PWD must be broadened to include a reference to the free movement of workers is caused by non-compliance with the PWD;
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that unless the PWD is properly implemented 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 anger against the EU;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Underlines that the ECJ has interpreted EU legislation in a way that was not the intention of the legislators; cCalls on the Commission, the Council and the EP to take immediate action to ensure the necessary changes in EU legislation to change the new practise of the ECJimplementation of the PWD in those countries that has so far failed to do so;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Therefore welcomes the Commission's statement from 3 April 2008 which clearly states that they will cits readiness to take concrete actiont inue to fight social dumping and that the freedom to provide services is not superior to the fundamental rights of trade unions order to remedy shortcomings in the implementation and enforcement of the posting of workers directive; the Recommendation aims at creating better administrative cooperation between Member States in order to ensure better protection of posted workers' rights and more effective cross-border enforcement;
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
Amendment 292 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25