Mr President, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, the chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has been unexpectedly called away and has asked me to stand in for her. I therefore only had a short time to prepare to present the position of the Committee on Legal Affairs. What is at issue here? It is not in fact language teachers. Many will perhaps say that the issue is far too detailed and far too complicated. But it is not about language teachers; it is all about an example, in this case about a citizens' Europe. It is about a story that was first brought before the European Court of Justice in 1989. An almost 12-year old story full of false hopes, stalling tactics, hopes and personal need, about placatory measures for those involved and tough defence of old rights against citizens seeking no more than their due. Let us name names, to coin a phrase: it is about the case of the Union citizens Allué and Coonan versus the University of Venice, it is about the case of the Union citizen Allué again versus the University of Venice and it is about the case of the Union citizen David Petri versus the University of Verona. The European Court of Justice returned a clear verdict. The European Court of Justice handed down three judgements vindicating these citizens who, before the first of these judgments, were employed to lecture in Italian universities as lettori. The tenet of these judgments is unequivocal: the rights of the persons affected to the free movement of labour and the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of nationality had been violated in that Italy did not offer the lettori the same terms of employment and job security as Italian nationals lecturing at a similar level in universities. Unfortunately, nothing was settled after the first judgement. The amendments made to the law in its wake in 1995 are still unable to guarantee full protection of the rights of lettori lecturing in universities. In the end even the ombudsman backed these citizens. I am not sure if this play on words works in the other languages. In German we say, “having a right is one thing, being allowed to exercise it is another”. The Committee on Legal Affairs has formulated a clear position here and thrown its weight behind the Union citizens whose rights have been restricted. Now a number of proposed amendments have been tabled which, to put it mildly, I find somewhat irritating. I only intend to refer to two examples which are an attempt to improve or, in one case, to reverse Parliament's position at the eleventh hour: the original recital H proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs reads: “Whereas the persons affected, who are Union citizens, have suffered losses, stress and uncertainty over this period of several years, as the result of being involved in protracted and repetitive litigation in hundreds of court proceedings over 12 years and have had their legitimate expectation of being able to exercise their profession with reasonable career prospects has been dashed”. Now an amendment has been tabled, proposed Amendment No 8, which deletes a few words and adds a few, thereby not only watering down but almost reversing the meaning. The text would then read: “Whereas the persons affected, who are Union citizens, have been involved in protracted and repetitive litigation and have seen their legitimate expectations dashed.” It is not only in German that this makes a clear difference. But now to what is, in my view, a much more serious process. Proposed Amendment No 9 suggests that “Whereas the Italian government takes the view that it has fully satisfied its obligations vis-à-vis the lettori pursuant to Law 236/95, which complies with the principles of the Treaty”. Apart from the fact that this was not discussed in the Committee on Legal Affairs, we would be maintaining here that the legal basis in Italian law corresponds to the principles of the Treaty and yet the Court of Justice said exactly the opposite! I consider this action to be dubious. If we take the view that these practices are legally acceptable and politically desirable then, as legislators, we should go ahead and change the principles, but if this is an attempt to use Parliament to conceal a position, then all I have to say is that the PPE wants no part of it!

Political group: PPE-DE