You are on page 1of 1

22.12.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 402/61

Both Belgium and Portugal returned incomplete statistics, which made it difficult to assess accurately to what
extent they had complied with the minimum percentage of checks required. The Commission has invited both
Member States to provide more comprehensive data as their current statistics may not give a true picture of
enforcement efforts. It has strongly recommended that a lead ministry be nominated to co-ordinate the
presentation of these statistics. The Commission has opened infringement proceedings against Greece and Italy
for not providing the required information.

The Commission is not in favour of linking the mandatory minimum fixed percentage of checks for each Member
State to the extent to which their transport industry engages in international transport since the Regulation also
covers domestic transport. Therefore, that approach would not constitute a sound basis for the enforcement effort
required.

(1 ) COM(97) 698 final.

(98/C 402/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1029/98


by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission
(6 April 1998)

Subject: EU legislation on workers using computer screens

It is well known that working on computer screens seriously affects people’s health.

Is there any Community legislation prescribing additional compensation for workers in this field and is there
provision for their having more time off, e.g. in the form of extra leave?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission


(13 May 1998)

Community legislation contains no provisions stipulating the payment of compensation or the granting of extra
leave to workers who use display screen equipment. Such measures are the responsibility of the Member States.

Directive 90/270/EEC (1) on work with display screen equipment stipulates, however, that the employer must
plan the worker’s activities in such a way that daily work on a display screen is periodically interrupted by breaks
or changes of activity reducing the workload at the display screen.

(1 ) OJ L 156, 21.6.1990.

(98/C 402/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1030/98


by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission
(6 April 1998)

Subject: Devaluation of the drachma

In recent months, the Greek Government tried by every means at its disposal deliberately to deceive the Greek
people by asserting that the drachma was not overvalued. Indirectly, though not overtly, it encouraged Greek
businesses to borrow in foreign currencies as interest rates in drachmas were very high. Furthermore, the Greek
Government claimed that the drachma did not necessarily have to enter the Exchange Rate Mechanism before
Greece joined EMU. Finally, the drachma entered the Exchange Rate Mechanism after first devaluing by 14 %,
while a few hours before devaluation the information was leaked to certain people who made huge profits.