ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2076/02

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: European border police force

The Presidency Conclusions from the Seville Summit make reference to a European border police force.

Is it intended that such a force would have its own organisation, structure and uniform, chain of command and jurisdiction? To whom would it be responsible and what steps are now proposed, including timeframe, in order to take this matter forward?

Is it foreseen that the force would only operate in Member States that are parties to the Schengen arrangements? In particular, given that the United Kingdom is outside the Schengen arrangements, can the Commission confirm that no elements of this force would be deployed on the territory of the United Kingdom?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

According to conclusion 31 of the Seville European Council (21/22 June 2002), it will be taken account of the intention expressed by the Commission to continue examining the advisability and feasibility of such a [European border] police force. This sentence refers to the developments that have been achieved during the last months.

As far as the Commission is concerned, a Communication(1) was adopted on 7 May 2002 on integrated management of external borders. This Communication is a reply to conclusion 42 of the Laeken European Council (14/15 December 2001) asking the Council and the Commission to work out arrangements for co-operation between services responsible for external border control and to examine the conditions in which a mechanism or common services to control external borders could be created . As a consequence the Communication expresses among other issues some recommendations and first reflections regarding the concept of a European Corps of Border Guard. The Communication stresses however that the establishment of such a European Corps would require most likely () amendment of the Treaties.

At this stage of reflections on the powers that could be conferred on a European Corps of Border Guards, the Communication refers to Article 62 of the EC Treaty, without prejudice to police co-operation efforts under agreements based on Articles 7 and 47 of the Schengen Convention. Whilst recognising the special position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, the Commission has underlined in its Communication that action to strengthen the Union's external frontiers is of importance to all Member States. In this respect, much of the focus needs to be on enhanced operational co-operation. This can benefit from the experience and input of all Member States.

(1) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament COM(2002) 233 final: Towards integrated management of the external borders of the Member States of the European Union.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2300/02

by Guido Bodrato (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Free movement and identity documents

In reply to the questions by Mr Speroni and Mr Gobbo of 22 October 2001 (P-2996/01 and P-3010/01(1)) the Commission confirms that valid identity cards or passports are the only documents recognised by all Member States when Union citizens leave their own country for a Member State other than the one of which they are a national. This is perfectly acceptable. The problem, however, according to European citizens themselves, concerns more specifically the situation of European citizens who settle in a Member State of which they are not a national and obtain from that State an identity document (residence permit) under the terms of Directive 68/360/EEC(2) of 15 October 1968. Why should this document not be considered valid, when the person in question goes to, or passes through, another Member State, to prove that he or she is a citizen of the European Union and hence enjoys the right to freedom of movement?

The Court of Justice's ruling of 21 September 1999 in Case C-378/97 (Wijsenbeek) shows that the Member States retain the right to carry out identity checks to ascertain whether the person being checked is a citizen of a Member State and therefore has the right to move freely within the territory of the Member States.

Given that Community law overrides national law, why should an official document issued under a Community act not be sufficient to prove a person's identity when that person a holder of an identity document issued by the country in which he or she has settled is temporarily in another Member State on holiday or for family reasons? Is there not a contradiction between the right to freedom of movement and the refusal to recognise the validity of a document issued by virtue of an act which confirms that right to freedom of movement?

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 211.

(2) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 13.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

All citizens with the nationality of one of the Member States are entitled to move and settle freely within the territory of the EU Member States. The identity card or passport required to exercise this right serves primarily to confirm the citizen's status as a citizen of the Union.

Each Member State determines the conditions under which nationality is granted and issues its own citizens with an identity document indicating their nationality: this may be a valid identity card or passport.

The purpose of the residence permit, issued to Union citizens residing in another Member State in accordance with the provisions of Community law, is not to confirm the holder's nationality, but to certify that he or she has the right of residence in the host Member State. The residence permit is issued on the basis of an identity card or passport, these being the only documents which confirm the holder's nationality and thereby the fact that he or she enjoys the rights conferred by the provisions of the EC Treaty and the rules of secondary legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3024/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Freedom of establishment for graduates of Italian academies of music

Pupils of Italian academies of music who obtained top marks in their examinations and graduated with merit or the highest distinction, and who have the benefit of postgraduate training at Parisian schools and experience as soloists, are not eligible to enter European competitions or be employed in European state schools as teachers.

Can the Commission say:

1. Whether it knows the reasons (be they to do with rules or of a procedural nature) for this debarment?

2. Who was empowered to make the exception to mutual recognition of qualifications?

3. Whether this unfortunate situation has arisen from any negligence on the part of the Italian authorities?

4. What steps should be taken to enable the graduates concerned to work as teachers in Member States?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2935/02 and E-3024/02given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2002)

The recognition of teaching qualifications is governed by Council Directives 89/48/EEC(1) and 92/51/EEC(2). These Directives aim at allowing European nationals who already have a professional qualification in their Member State of origin, to practise their profession in another Member State. In order to benefit from the General System, it is necessary to be fully qualified for the exercise of a given profession in the Member State of origin.

As far as the Commission knows, the qualifications awarded by the Italian conservatories are not sufficient to have access to the profession of music teacher in Italy. In order to have access to this profession, it is necessary to possess also the teaching qualification (abilitazione), which can be

obtained by competition, examination or qualifying training course. Therefore, unless they have this further qualification, musicians who have graduated from the Italian conservatories cannot benefit from the Directives in order to exercise the teaching profession in other Member States, in which this profession is regulated. As far as concerts and orchestras are concerned, to the Commission's knowledge, the relevant professions are not regulated in other Member States. Therefore, graduates from the Italian conservatories should encounter no legal obstacle related to their diplomas in gaining access to these professions.

(1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years & apos duration, OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(2) Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2934/02

by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2002)

Subject: Application of the European Convention on the Academic Recognition of University Qualifications (ETS 32)

If a State signatory to the European Convention on the Academic Recognition of University Qualifications (ETS 32) withholds equivalence of (non-vocational) qualifications from a graduate because certain parts of the syllabus concerned do not meet its requirements, thereby requiring all graduates from another State signatory to retake all or part of their syllabus, can this be considered as contravening the aforementioned convention?

Does Article 4 of the convention oblige the authorities competent to deal with issues of equivalence, including the education ministries of the States signatory, to notify applicants for equivalent status of the subject areas of the syllabus that fail to meet their requirements? Must they also provide holders of foreign university qualifications with a list of the examinations they must pass?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

The Commission is aware of the questions raised by the European Convention on the Academic Recognition of University Qualifications (ETS 032), which the Honourable Member mentions, and by the other conventions concluded within the Council of Europe on this subject. However, the Commission is not the authority responsible for ensuring that the conventions in question are applied nor, therefore, for deciding whether the measures taken by one or several States signatory are compatible with Convention ETS 032.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2370/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is a complex agreement covering a broad range of services, and it has a potentially significant impact on the ability of local/regional authorities to regulate and deliver services. Given the uncertainty surrounding the potential impact of GATS on sub-national authorities, would the European Commission state what objective assessments on the potential impact of GATS have been undertaken?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2370/02 and E-2371/02given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

In order to prepare for the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations the Commission has conducted broad consultations in an attempt to ensure a balanced input into its preparations for the negotiations. In addition to general meetings on broader trade policy issues under the so-called Civil Society Dialogue, the Commission has hosted a series of specific meetings on the GATS negotiations with civil society, the last one on 2 July 2002. These meetings are open to all groups with an interest in GATS negotiations, including Member State representatives whether from central or local government. The Commission intends to continue this dialogue as the GATS negotiations moved forward.

The Commission's efforts to consult with civil society are of course supplemented by the consultations that take place at national level and which help shape the positions Member States adopt when the Commission consult them through the so-called ad-hoc 133 Committee (Services). However, responsibility for consulting with regional/local authorities falls in the Commission's view on the national authorities of each Member State in a manner best suited to their legal framework. The question therefore is perhaps more properly addressed to the national authorities of each Member State. The Commission has consequently not undertaken an assessment itself of the potential impact on the ability of local/regional authorities to regulate and deliver services nor is it aware of such an assessments having been done by others.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2858/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 October 2002)

Subject: Use by the municipality of Rome of funding under Life III, the Fifth Action Programme for the environment and sustainable development, and educational and awareness-raising measures as regards environmental problems

In September 2002 the supervisory committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs presented a report on how EU funding has been spent.

The inquiry revealed the worrying slowness and inefficiency in the award of contracts by local authorities: commitments for 2000 accounted for only 2 % of the whole CSF.

Alarm at the inadequate use of European funding by local authorities has also been expressed by the Commission on various occasions.

A number of local authorities, such as the municipality of Rome, very much need to use European funding to protect and safeguard the environment.

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

1. whether the municipality of Rome has submitted projects under the programmes Life III, the Fifth Action Programme for the environment and sustainable development, and educational and awareness-raising measures as regards environmental problems;

2. whether the municipality of Rome has obtained funding for such projects;

3. whether the funding has been used?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

The Municipality of Rome did not submit any application under the LIFE III programme, nor did it submit any proposal in the framework of the general calls for proposals 2001 and 2002 of the Directorate General for Environment, under the theme environmental awareness-raising.

In the past, following a call for proposals(1) on environmental awareness raising projects, the municipality of Rome has been granted a subvention to co-finance the Mediterranean Local Agenda 21 conference, which took place in Rome 22-24 November 1995. The total amount paid by the Commission amounts to EUR 45 216, which covers part of the costs for the organisation of the conference.

(1) OJ C 71, 23.3.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2992/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Measures to reduce fisheries accidents

Paragraph 17 of the EP's resolution of 5 April 2001 on Fisheries: safety and causes of accidents(1) calls on the Commission to speed up the process of harmonising statistical data and concepts relating to occupational accidents with a view to establishing uniform criteria

which will make it possible to identify the causes of fishing accidents and developments in that field, and therefore calls for a regulation designed to ensure that the Member States apply the various stages of the European statistics on fishing accidents and European statistics on occupational diseases.

Has the Commission taken any steps in this connection?

(1) OJ C 21 E, 24.1.2002, p. 359.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

Since 1990, the Commission, Eurostat and the Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs, together with the competent national authorities, have been engaged in the harmonisation of European statistics relating to accidents at work (ESAW Project(1)). The aim of the project is to coordinate the criteria and methodologies applicable to the registration and transmission to the Commission of occupational accident data. ESAW statistics covering all the Member States are currently available for the period 1993-2000.

With a view to stimulating a more vigorous policy for the prevention of occupational accidents in Europe, a final phase (ESAW III) allowing the identification and analysis of the causes and circumstances of such accidents, has just been initiated. Phase III data will gradually become available for the reference years 2001 to 2004.

In the case of occupational diseases, data collection for the first phase of EODS(2) statistics has commenced for the reference year 2001. Collection is based on a harmonised list of 69 medical diagnoses, coded in accordance with the WHO ICD-10(3), and a list of related agents. These data will be available annually from 2003.

(1) ESAW: European Statistics on Accidents at Work.

(2) EODS: European Occupational Diseases Statistics.

(3) ICD: International Statistical Classification of Diseases.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1838/02

by Martin Schulz (PSE) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: Compatibility of the action taken by the Italian Government with the Growth and Stability Pact

What does the Commission think of the financial operation which has been announced by the Italian Government and which involves the setting up of a company legally entitled to take over Italy's state-owned portfolio of buildings, monuments and land, and the setting up of a second company to which part of that portfolio could be ceded in order to provide guarantees (in the form of mortgages) for loans taken out by the Italian Government for the purpose of financing public works, and which might possibly put such items up for sale?

In view of the risks involved in selling much of that portfolio, the unusual procedures which would be called for and the constraints which would have to be observed should insolvency require certain monuments of historical importance to be sold, it may legitimately be feared that such creative financing would in practice lead to an increase in public debt in a country which is already one of the most indebted of the EU Member States. Hence it should be determined in good time whether or not the proposed action is compatible with adherence to the Growth and Stability Pact.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Under the Stability and Growth Pact, all Member States are committed to adhere to the medium-term objective of budgetary positions close to balance or in surplus.

The budgetary position is defined in terms of general government deficit, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community(1) (the European System of Accounts, also known as ESA 95) and Council Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 of 22 November 1993 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community(2) (as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 351/2002 of 25 February 2002(3)) on the excessive deficit procedure.

The question refers to legislation recently adopted by the Italian parliament, setting up two institutions, Patrimonio SpA and of Infrastrutture SpA. Eurostat is currently scrutinising the nature of the operations to be carried out by these institutions and will pass judgement on their treatment in the government accounts once the institutions start operating.

(1) OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.

(2) OJ L 332, 31.12.1993.

(3) OJ L 55, 26.2.2002.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3120/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(30 October 2002)

Subject: Federal Mogul planned closure

Is the Commission aware of the planned closure of the Federal Mogul plant in Bridgewater, United Kingdom, with a loss of almost four hundred jobs? Can the Commission confirm whether Federal Mogul operations in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Belgium have received any assistance in the last five years for job creation? If so, in view of the fact that jobs are being transferred from Bridgewater to Poland and Turkey, does the Commission not feel that the funds should be repaid?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Further to the Honourable Member's request for information on the planned closure of the Federal Mogul plant in Bridgewater, the Commission contacted the South West England region who confirmed that Federal Mogul did not receive any European Social Fund (ESF) assistance during the past five years.

For the Federal Mogul plants in the other Member States mentioned, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that it has the overall responsibility of ensuring that Community Funds are used in accordance with the structural funds programs which it had adopted whereas the ESF managing authority, in each Member State, decides on the application requests received for ESF co-funding. It is therefore not possible to know, at Commission level, if this single enterprise has received Community funding under a national or even a regional measure. The Commission will therefore have to contact national authorities and ask them to lead their own inquiries. Any information which national authorities may send to the Commission will be forwarded to the Honourable Member.

In any case, the ESF rules do not foresee repayment if a beneficiary transfers its operation outside the Union. It must be underlined that ESF funding does not support a company as such, but provides an investment in human capital, so that the training measures individuals benefit from improves their employability.