Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-230"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.21.2-230"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
No opt-outs were provided for any of the Member States’ systems when the directive was debated and adopted, and it therefore applies universally. I can well imagine that interpretation of the directive is far from simple at times, since it incorporates a global concept of the European Union and covers all the different forms of labour relations.
As far as the Commission’s basic approach to this matter is concerned, you will be aware that the Laval case is pending before the European Court of Justice, and so I have no choice but to say that it would be wrong for me to adopt a specific position. Generally speaking, I can say that in principle the Commission’s comments should not call any Member State’s social model per se into question. They should, however, unfailingly uphold the principle that the economic freedoms enshrined in the Treaty can be combined with the various social models. In other words, the directive was intended from the outset to provide protection to posted workers at a level that is appropriate for the given Member State. Interpretation may be problematic in certain cases, as I said before, but this is the principle which underpins the Directive, and which applies to all the Member States."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples