ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1008/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Macerata

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Macerata, urgently need to use European funds to combat the abuse of women and children,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Macerata has submitted projects for the Daphne programme?

2. whether the municipality of Macerata has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1004/03, E-1005/03, E-1006/03,E-1007/03, E-1008/03, E-1009/03, E-1010/03, E-1011/03,E-1012/03, E-1013/03, E-1014/03, E-1015/03 and E-1016/03given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

The Daphne programme received the following proposals in 2003 alone:

- two proposals from the muncipality of Florence Assessorato Pubblica Istruzione e Politiche Giovanili, Direzione Istruzione;

- one proposal from the muncipality of Pesaro Servizio sociale;

- one proposal from the muncipality of Siena Comitato di ente per le pari opportunita.

The Commission has not yet assessed these proposals and is, therefore, unable to provide the Honourable Member with details of the selection or funding at this stage. Information on the outcome of the assessment process will be sent in July 2003 to all parties which applied to the Daphne programme in 2003.

No proposal was received between 1997 and 2003 for the other municipalities referred to by the Honourable Member (Ancona, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato and Terni).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1004/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Ancona

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Ancona, urgently need to use European funds to combat the abuse of women and children,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted projects for the Daphne programme?

2. whether the municipality of Ancona has secured funding for these projects?

3. whether this funding has been used?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1004/03, E-1005/03, E-1006/03,E-1007/03, E-1008/03, E-1009/03, E-1010/03, E-1011/03,E-1012/03, E-1013/03, E-1014/03, E-1015/03 and E-1016/03given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

The Daphne programme received the following proposals in 2003 alone:

- two proposals from the muncipality of Florence Assessorato Pubblica Istruzione e Politiche Giovanili, Direzione Istruzione;

- one proposal from the muncipality of Pesaro Servizio sociale;

- one proposal from the muncipality of Siena Comitato di ente per le pari opportunita.

The Commission has not yet assessed these proposals and is, therefore, unable to provide the Honourable Member with details of the selection or funding at this stage. Information on the outcome of the assessment process will be sent in July 2003 to all parties which applied to the Daphne programme in 2003.

No proposal was received between 1997 and 2003 for the other municipalities referred to by the Honourable Member (Ancona, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato and Terni).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2071/03

by Anne Jensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject: VAT refunds

Danish hauliers have encountered problems in obtaining refunds of VAT on diesel purchased in other Member States. In some cases, the responsible authorities in those Member States have imposed unnecessary administrative burdens on hauliers and have been slow to process VAT refunds. Among others things, the failure to pay out refunds in due time has resulted in financial problems for hauliers.

What steps will the Commission take to remedy this situation? Will it take initiatives to simplify the administration of VAT refunds? If so, of what will those initiatives consist?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

At present traders who incur expenditure in a Member State where they are not established have to submit an application to that Member State to obtain a refund of the VAT on such expenditure under the arrangements provided for in the Eighth VAT Directive(1).

Traders, and road hauliers in particular, have been complaining for some years about these arrangements and about the cumbersome administrative formalities they involve and the time it takes to obtain a refund.

The Commission is aware of these problems and in June 1998 submitted a proposal for a directive(2) to replace these arrangements by an entitlement for taxable persons to recover the VAT directly in the VAT returns they submit in the Member State where they are established. That Member State will then obtain a refund of the amount in question from the Member State where the VAT was due through a compensation system to offset debts between Member States.

This proposal would obviously be a significant simplification for traders, who would be able to recover VAT paid in another Member State in the same way as national VAT.

Although this proposal has received the full support of traders and a favourable opinion from the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee, unanimous agreement has not yet been reached within the Council.

(1) Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, OJ L 331, 27.12.1979.

(2) OJ C 219, 15.7.1998.
(2004/C58E/117) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1824/03
byMonicaFrassoni(Verts/ALE)totheCommission
(2June2003)
Subject:MotorwayinfrastructureinLombardyandTrans-EuropeanCorridorNo5
PursuanttotheLombardyRegion’sregionalregulationno.4of8July2002,thelicensingprocedurein
respectoftheCremona-Mantuaregionalmotorwayiscurrentlyunderway.
IntheLombardyRegionalGovernment’sproceedingsno.7/9865of19July2002itisstatedthat‘oneof
thepriorityinfrastructureobjectivesundertheEUprogrammeisthecompletionofCorridorNo5(also
knownasthe45th-parallelorBarcelona-Kievcorridor),theItaliansectionofwhichcomprisesacrossingofthePobasinprobablyinvolvingatransitroutepassingtothesouthoftheMilanjunction’.
OtheritemsofinfrastructureplannedforLombardyarealsojustifiedbythesponsoringauthoritiesonthe
groundsthattheyconstituteoperationalsegmentsoftheabovecorridor.Thisisthecase,forexample,withtheBrescia-Bergamo-Milanregionalmotorway.
Inviewoftheabove,wouldtheCommissionanswerthefollowingquestions:
1. IsTrans-EuropeanCorridorNo5duetopassthroughLombardy?
2. Isthecorridortobearoadoneorarailone?3. IsCommunityfundingtobemadeavailableforthecompletionofthecorridor?
AnswergivenbyMrsdePalacioonbehalfoftheCommission
(14July2003)
CorridorVisamulti-modaltransportlinkrunningfromthenorthofItaly(VeneziaandTrieste)toUkraine
(Lviv).TheCorridorwasdecidedbytheMinistersofTransportatthesecondPan-EuropeanTransportConferenceinCretein1994.AMemorandumofUnderstandingwassignedon16December1996.Themain line ofCorridor V linksVenezia (Italy)and Trieste (Italy)via Ljubljana (Slovenia) andBudapest(Hungary)withLviv(Ukraine).InadditiontothislinetherearethreebranchestoportsontheAdriaticSea,andonebranchtoconnectCorridorVwithCorridorIVinBratislava.
ConcerningtheprecisequestionsputbytheHonourableMember,theCommissioncangivethefollowing
informations:
1. AsdefinedbytheMemorandumofUnderstanding,CorridorVdoesnotpassthroughLombardy.
2. CorridorVisaroadandrailcorridor.
3. FordifferentpartsofCorridorV,differentCommunityinstrumentscanbeused.Forthosepartswhich
runthroughMemberStates,theTEN-Tbudgetcanbeused.TheTEN-Tbudgetisforco-financingoftheTEN-TnetworkinMemberStates.OnthosepartswhichrunthroughAccessionCountries,theInstrument for Structural policies for Pre-Accession (ISPA) funds can be used. ISPA co-financestransportandenvironmentinfrastructure.
ItmightbeofinterestinthiscontexttotheHonourableMember,thatpriorityprojectNo6(‘High-Speed
train/combined transport: France-Italy’) runs through the region of Lombardy. This project has beendecidedbytheHeadofStatesoftheUnionin1994asapriorityandispartoftheEssenlist(AnnexIIIofDecisionNo1692/96/ECoftheParliamentandoftheCouncilof23July1996onCommunityguidelinesfortheDevelopmentoftheTrans-EuropeanTransportNetwork(
1)).
(1) OJL228,9.9.1996.C58E/102 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
/dash Finally,regardingthethirdquestion,thegreatestsourceofnewjobcreationhasbeentheservices
sector,asisthecaseforallMemberStates.AccordingtoLFS,theemploymentgrowthintheservicesectorwas5,4%in1998,0,5%in1999,1,1%in2000,0,5%in2001and1%in2002,explainingtheincreaseoftheshareofemploymentfrom57,7%in1998to60%in2002.
/dash A more detailed examination of sectoral employment developments, shows that the current
employmentgainsarefuelledbyarevivalofagriculturalemployment,bystronggainsinconstructionactivity(associatedwiththepreparationoftheinfrastructureofthe2004OlympicGames)andbyrapidgrowthinbusinessservicesandrealestatesector.
(2004/C58E/210) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2686/03
byAlexandrosAlavanos(GUE/NGL)totheCommission
(10September2003)
Subject:Collectionofstatisticaldata
IthasbeenestablishedthattheGreekadministrationdoesnotforwardontimetotheEuropeanStatistical
Service(Eurostat)thestatisticaldatawhichitisobligedtosendunderseveraldirectives,forexamplethoserelatingtotourism,theenvironmentandemployment.CantheCommissionprovidealistofthedirectivesrequiringspecificdatatobesenttothecompetentEuropeanUniondepartmentsforwhichGreeceeitherdoes not send the data, does so after the deadline or does so using data collection methods whichincompatiblewiththecollectionmethodslaiddownbytheEuropeanUnion?
AnswergivenbyMrSolbesMiraonbehalfoftheCommission
(24October2003)
ItshouldbestatedthatGreecemeetsthevastmajorityofitsCommunitystatisticalobligations,andfailsto
complywithonlyafewprovisionsfromamongover260legalinstruments.
Itisneverthelesstruethatprogressstillhastobemadeincertainareas,particularlywhenitcomesto
meeting transmission deadlines. A summary table of areas in which the level of conformity withCommunitystatisticalobligationsmaybe opentocriticism hasbeen sentdirectly tothe HonourableMember and Parliament’s Secretariat. The Commissionis considering what action shouldbe taken toremedythissituationinaccordancewiththeestablishedprocedures,andisincontactwiththeGreekauthorities.
(2004/C58E/211) WRITTENQUESTIONP-2698/03
byIngoSchmitt(PPE-DE)totheCommission
(3September2003)
Subject:Policyondisabledpersons/dashallocationoffunding
1. What type and what amountoffunding are available overall for the general area ofpolicy on
disabledpersons?
2. Whattypeandwhatamountoffundingareavailableoverallfortheareaofpolicyondisabled
personsinconnectionwiththeEuropeanYearofPeoplewithDisabilities?
3. What amount of the funding provided under paragraphs 1 and 2 was available and/or is still
availablefortheFederalRepublicofGermanyand/oritsfederalstates,andsubjecttowhatconditions?C58E/196 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
formoftariffsonimportsofcertaingoodsfromtheUnitedStatesuptothatamount.However,theUnited
Stateshasnotyettakenconcretestepstowardscompliance,althoughboththeAdministrationandseniormembersofCongresshaveindicatedthatthisistheirintention.
At the same time it must be made clear that the Commission’s objective in this dispute is not the
impositionofcountermeasuresonAmericanproductsbuttoobtainthewithdrawalofillegalmeasuresthatadverselyaffecttheinterestsofCommunitycompanies.TheCommission’saimis,therefore,toensurethattheUnitedStatescomplieswiththeWTOrulingonFSCwithintheshortesttimepossible.ButiftheUnitedStatesfailstocomply,theCommunitywillhavenootheroptionthantoexerciseitsWTOrights.
Inanattempt,however,tominimisethenegativeconsequencesthatanyeventualcountermeasurescould
createforEuropeanindustry,theCommissionhaslaunchedapublicconsultationexerciseonadraftlistof
productssoastogiveeconomicoperatorstheopportunitytoexpresstheirviewsonthelist;furthermoretheCommissionhasonlyinsertedonthelistproductsforwhichimportsfromtheUnitedStatesrepresenta maximum 20% of total imports into the Community. The Commission is now in the process ofevaluatingcommentsreceivedfrominterestedpartiesduringthepublicconsultationperiod.Incarryingoutthisanalysis,theCommissionaimstofurtherminimisethenegativeconsequencesthatanyeventualsanctionscouldcreatetoCommunityinterestswhichisafterallthestatedobjectiveofthewholeexercise.AfinaldecisiononthiswillbetakenfollowingconsultationoftheMemberStatesduringthefirstquarterof2003.
AsregardsthespecificsituationdescribedbytheHonourableMember(wherehesays‘assomeofthe
productspotentiallylistedforhightariffsareproducedinthesouth-westofEngland,joblossescouldresult’),hightariffsoncertainproductsfavour,notdamage,import-competingdomesticproducersandthusdonotharmtheirpersonnel.
(2004/C58E/018) WRITTENQUESTIONP-0415/03
byRogerHelmer(PPE-DE)totheCommission
(11February2003)
Subject:VATonfoodintheUKandIreland
WouldtheCommissionconfirmordenyareportthatappearedintheUK’sSundayTelegraph(25January
2003)thattheUKandIrelandwillbeforcedtolevyVATonfoodifMalta’saccessiontotheEUis
approved,inthatMalta’saccessiontermstotheEUsaythatMaltashouldlevyVATonfoodby2010,bywhichtimenootherEUcountrywouldhavethisexemption?
AnswergivenbyMrBolkesteinonbehalfoftheCommission
(17March2003)
ThelengthofMalta’stransitionalarrangementsundertheAccessionTreatyisnotlinkedtothetransitional
periodreferredtoinArticle28loftheSixthVATDirective(
1).Duringthisperiod,IrelandandtheUnited
Kingdomareentitledtocontinuetoapplyzero-rates.Asaresult,thesezero-ratesmayonlybeabolishedbyaunilateraldecisionoftheseMemberStatesorbyanewdirectiveadoptedbyaunanimousdecisionoftheEU’sCouncilofMinistersunderArticle93oftheECTreaty.
(1) SixthCouncilDirective 77/388/EECof17May1977ontheharmonisationofthelawsoftheMemberStates
relating to turnover taxes /dash Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145,
13.6.1977.6.3.2004EN C58E/17 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
(2004/C58E/135) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1989/03
byMaurizioTurco(NI)
andMonicaFrassoni(Verts/ALE)totheCommission
(16June2003)
Subject:ApplicationofthemilkquotasystemintheItalianRepublic
AsaresultoftheapplicationofthemilkquotasystemintheItalianRepublic,anadditionallevyofover
EUR1000millionwasdueintheperiod1995-2001.
TheItaliangovernmenthassubmitteddraftreformstotherelevantparliamentarycommittees,including
thepossiblecancellationoffinesincurredbyproducersinthatperiodandanewsystemforapplyinglevies.
Reliableestimatesputtheamountofwhatisknownas‘blackmilk’at20%oftotalproduction,with
fraudulentpracticescontinuingtooccur,suchasthenon-registeredimportofmilkfromabroadandthere-useofpowderedmilkintendedforuseasfeed.
TheL1formsforthe2001/2002season,submittedtotheAgriculturalDeliveryAgency(AGEA)bymilk
buyersandsignedbyaround60000producers,showthat:
(a) 5953farmsclaimtohaveproducedmilkwhilstclaimingnottohaveanycattleorfailingtodeclare
howmany;totalproductionattributabletothese‘producers’comestoover1,6milliontonnes;
(b) 2527farmsdeclareover12000kgofproductionperheadperannum,whichisclearlyincompatible
withtheanimals’potential;thisamountstodeclaredproductionperheadof284744kgperannum;
(c) 157farmsdeclareafatcontentfordeliveredmilkoflessthan2,80%,alevelbelowwhichtheproduct
cannolongerbecalled‘milk’;
(d) a very large number of buyers have bought milk from different producers with an identical fat
content,andwiththequantityofmilkdeliveredbeingidenticaltothequantitycorrected,suggestingthatthechemicalandmicrobiologicalanalysesrequiredundercurrentlegislationhadnotinfacttakenplace(orthatthemilkwasnotfromthesesources),withpredictableconsequencesonthehealthandhygienesituation.
Anymonitoringoftheseserious‘anomalies’hasbeenrenderedslowerandmoredifficultbythechaotic
state of the national cattle registry, the principle means of monitoring commercial stock and cattlemovements.
CantheCommissionstatewhetheritisawareoftheseseriousanomalies,whetheritintendstotakesteps
tosafeguardtheCommunitybudgetandconsumerhealth,andifso,whatsuchstepswouldbe?
AnswergivenbyMrFischleronbehalfoftheCommission
(8August2003)
TheCommissioncloselymonitorsoperationofthemilkquotasysteminItaly,wherethemainproblem
remainscollectionofthelevyfromproducers.ItknowsabouttheseeminganomaliesindicatedbytheHonourable Members and that is why in 2002 the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) launched aninvestigation intoanumberofspecific irregularity cases.AsthishasnotyetbeencompletedOLAF’sfindingsarenotyetknown.
MoreoverunderCouncilDecision2003/530/ECof16July2003approvinganItalianGovernmentaid
scheme,ItalywillhavetopaytheCommunitythefullvolumeofdebttoberecoveredforthe1995/1996to2001/2002levyperiods.6.3.2004EN C58E/119 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
(2004/C58E/177) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2368/03
byJorgeHernándezMollar(PPE-DE)totheCommission
(17July2003)
Subject:EUaccessiontotherepopulationprogrammefortheIberianlynx
The Iberian lynx is in serious danger ofextinction: only 200 individuals remain in all ofAndalusia,
concentrated in the Doñanaandthe Sierra deAndújar. Breeding cubsin captivity willnotsolvetheproblem,butisatpresentthemostpracticaloption.
TheSpanishcentralgovernmentandtheAndalusianregionalgovernmenthavetherefore,aspromised,
signedanagreementfortheprotectionofthelynx.Thisagreementbringstogetheralloftheexistingunilateralinitiatives.
CantheCommissionstateinwhatwaysitwouldbewillingtopromotethisagreementfortheprotection
oftheIberianlynx,andwhatformitsaidcouldtake?
AnswergivenbyMrsWallströmonbehalfoftheCommission
(10September2003)
TheAgreementbetweentheSpanishMinistryofEnvironmentandtheRegionalGovernmentofAndalucía
fortheconservationoftheIberianLynxwaspublishedintheSpanishOfficialgazetteon11July2003(Resoluciónde23dejuniode2003,delaSecretaríaGeneraldeMedioAmbiente,porlaquesedisponelapublicacióndelConveniodeColaboraciónsuscritoentreelMinisteriodeMedioAmbienteylaJuntadeAndalucíaparaeldesarrollodeunúnicoprogramacoordinadodeactuacionesparalaaplicacióndelaEstrategiaNacionaldeConservacióndelLinceenAndalucía).
ThemainobjectiveoftheAgreementistomaintainandtoincreasetheeffortsforthedevelopmentofa
programmefortheconservationoftheIberianLynxinAndalucía.
Article 3 of the Agreement identifies on-going initiatives. One of these initiatives is the LIFE Nature
programmefortheconservationoftheIberianLynxinAndalucía.There isalsoanotherLIFENatureprogrammefortheconservationoftheIberianLynxinCastilla-LaMancha.TheCommissionisfollowingthesetwoLIFEprojectsandparticipatingincertainco-ordinationmeetings.
(2004/C58E/178) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2398/03
byMonicaFrassoni(Verts/ALE)totheCommission
(21July2003)
Subject:StructuralassistanceforValenciaandtheEbrotransfer
AccordingtotheCourtofAuditors’SpecialReportNo7/2003,tenregionswouldnothavebeeneligible
forObjective1assistanceundertheStructuralFunds2000-2006hadmorerecentstatistics(1996,1997,1998)beenused,sincetheirGDPwasmorethan75%oftheCommunityaverage.TheAutonomousCommunityofValenciaisoneofthoseregions.
Thisisaserioussituationbecause:
(a) inthemoredevelopedareasoftheSpain’seasternseaboardlikeValencia,thehighlevelofundeclared
labour(thehighestinSpainandeveninEuropeatpercentagesofover30%)tendstodeflatetherealincomelevel(
1),meaningthattheactuallevelofdevelopmentisevenhigherthanissuggestedbythe
statistics,regardlessofwhetherornottheyareup-to-date;
(b) thefactthatthehighestratesofundeclaredlabourareindevelopedareassuchasValenciatestifiesto
adegreeofmisgovernmentwhichisnowalsobeingreflectedintheapplicationforEUfundingfortheprojecttotransferwaterfromtheRiverEbrotoeasternseaboardareas.Valencia/dashwhichhasalreadyreceivedfundingtowhichitisnotentitledandwhichhasusedthistopromoteactivitiesthatcallforC58E/164 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
(2004/C58E/198) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2582/03
byErikMeijer(GUE/NGL)totheCommission
(6August2003)
Subject:CourseofeventsinvolvingthewhistleblowerattheEuropeanCourtofAuditors2:complications
forassessmentarisingfromsimultaneousneedtoinvestigatesuperiors
1. DoestheCommissionregarditasarelevantorirrelevantfactthat,accordingtohisowntestimony
andtotherecommendationofadisciplinarycommittee,aconscientiouswhistlebloweractedingoodfaithandintheinterestsofaEuropeaninstitution?
2. CantheCommissionindicatethenumberofoccasionsonwhichalegallyempoweredauthorityofa
European institution has, on its own responsibility, ignored the recommendation of the disciplinarycommittee? Does the Commission deem the disregarding by the competent authority of a (repeated)recommendationofthedisciplinarycommitteetoconstitutecontemptofthatcommittee?
3. HastheCommissionsubsequentlyaskedtheSecretary-Generalwhether,whentakinghisdecisionto
dismisstheofficial,hetookaccountofthecomplaintslodgedbythewhistlebloweragainsttheformerMemberoftheCourtofAuditors,MrsNikolaou,whichtheEuropeanAnti-FraudOffice(OLAF)andthe
legalauthoritieshavealreadyinvestigatedorarestillinvestigating?
4. HastheCommissionaskedOLAFwhy,inthatinstitution’sPressReleaseNo18,nodetailsweregiven
of the services rendered by the whistleblower as the person whose information had resulted in theinitiation of a legal investigation into the conduct of the former Member of the Court of Auditors,MrsNikolaou?
5. Giventherecommendationofthedisciplinarycommittee,doestheCommissionconcludethatan
honestwhistleblowerisrequiredtoinfringetheprovisionsofthefirstparagraphofArticle21oftheStaffRegulationsofOfficials,pursuanttowhichhemustassisthissuperiors,ininstanceswherethecontestedillegalactsappeartohavebecommittedbypersonswhoareactuallyamongstthosesuperiors?
6. DoestheCommissionfeelthatitisresponsibleforthefutureofofficialsemployedbyEUinstitutions
whohavehonestlytriedtoterminatewhattheyregardaswrongdoingbydrawingattentionthereto?Howdoesitinterpretitsresponsibility?
Jointanswer
toWrittenQuestionsE-2581/03andE-2582/03
givenbyMrKinnockonbehalfoftheCommission
(30September2003)
Each InstitutionoftheEuropean Unionisanemployerinitsownright andeach oftheInstitutions
therefore manages disciplinary matters relating to its own staff, under the provisions of the StaffRegulationsandsubjecttothejudgementsoftheEuropeanCourtofJustice.AsthecasereferredtobytheHonourableMemberconcernsapersonwhowasemployedbytheCourtofAuditors,theCommissionisnotabletoanswerquestionsaboutthisspecificcase.TheHonourableMembermaywishtoaddresshisquestionstotheCourtofAuditors.
(2004/C58E/199) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2605/03
byElizabethLynne(ELDR)totheCommission
(28August2003)
Subject:Recognitionofqualificationsforlanguageteachers
IstheCommissionawarethataBritishteacherofEnglishhavingalladequatequalificationsandteaching
experienceintheUnitedKingdomisrequiredtopasstheCAPESexam(Certificatd’aptitudepédagogiqueàl’enseignementduseconddegré,averydifficultexam,particularlyforaforeigner)inordertobeabletohaveafull-timeteacherpositionintheFrencheducationsystem?6.3.2004EN C58E/185 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion