Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-09-14-Speech-2-173"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040914.10.2-173"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Of course, the question is more an internal question relating to Greece and its various governments and departments but, as Mr Papadimoulis has specifically touched on a provision relating to the question of active contracts, because that is the meaning of the previous phrase, I should like to say that, first, this specific provision in the presidential decree – and I am talking about now, I am not referring to what happened in 2002 – does not infringe the directive, given that no obligation to convert contracts to open-ended contracts derives from it. The conversion terms for which provision is made in the presidential decree come within the jurisdiction of the Greek Government and any disputes which arise from the application of these terms may be resolved before the Greek courts.
The term whereby there must be an active contract for these people to whom you refer, and who were not recruited during the period in which the directive had not been transposed into Greek law, relates to the mechanism for converting contracts to open-ended contracts. The Commission does not therefore have jurisdiction to take measures to abolish this term, in that no such obligation to convert contracts derives from the directive.
As Mr Papadimoulis correctly observed, the Commission raised questions in the past concerning the measures taken by the Greek Government in order to prevent abuse from the use of fixed-term contracts during the delay in transposing the directive into national law. The question to the Commission concerned the previous presidential decree which, on the one hand, was late in transposing the directive and, on the other hand, transposed it incorrectly. Had this situation not been corrected in the meantime under the new presidential decree, the Commission would in theory have been able to institute the proceedings for which provision is made in articles 226 and 228, the purpose of which is to proclaim that the Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and to force it to comply.
In addition, as Mr Papadimoulis referred to civil rights, the Commission could in fact take action against the Member State in the event of damage caused by late and incorrect transposition of a directive. The relevant case law exists for such action. In this way, citizens are protected from damage which they might sustain as a result of culpable and illegal delay in the transposition of a directive by a Member State, in which case the national courts have jurisdiction and may rule on compensation provided that, first, the Member State has engaged in illegal, infringing conduct, such as the delayed or incorrect transposition of a directive into national law and, secondly, there is a link of cause and effect between the Member State's conduct and the damage sustained.
As far as the case under discussion is concerned, given that the new presidential decree does not appear to contradict the directive and, subject to completion of the Commission's process of examination, there are no measures which could be taken against Greece."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples