ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-3558/97 by Riccardo Nencini (PSE) to the Commission (4 November 1997)

Subject: Equivalence of diplomas in Europe

Ms Cristina Ruiz Martì, a Spanish national, applied to take part in a selection competition for a post as library assistant at the University of Florence; in her application, she requested recognition of the equivalence of her secondary education diploma. Decree Law No 29 of 3 February 1993 refers to the procedure for establishing the equivalence of diplomas awarded on completion of secondary education. However, the procedure specified in that legislation has never been implemented, with the result that, according to the Spanish Consulate General, no Spanish citizen who has submitted a declaration concerning the equivalence of secondary education diplomas issued by the Italian Consulate has ever been allowed to take part in a public competitive examination.

So Ms Ruiz Martì's application was rejected because, although she had provided all the documentation requested, it was impossible in practice to establish the equivalence of her diploma as there was no organization in Italy capable of doing so.

What action does the Commission intend to take to resolve this question, which involves a serious and recurrent infringement of fundamental rights?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 January 1998)

Decree-Law No 29 of 3 February 1993, to which the Honourable Member refers, lays down in Article 37(1) the right of Community citizens to sit examinations for public-sector jobs in Italy that do not entail the exercice of public authority. Article 37(3) provides for the adoption by the Government of a procedure for recognising the equivalence of study qualifications, thereby making it easier for Community nationals to sit such examinations. According to the Honourable Member, the implementing provisions for the Decree-Law have not yet been adopted.

Under Article 48 of the EC Treaty, which concerns freedom of movement for workers, as interpreted in case law ((See in particular the judgments in Heylens (Case 222/86) and Vlassopoulou (Case C-340/89). )), the Italian authorities are required, even if there are no national rules on equivalence procedures, to take account of qualifications obtained in another Member State and to compare the education or training acquired by the migrant with that required in the host Member State. That Article may also be relied upon directly by individuals before the national courts.

The Commission has already contacted the Italian authorities with a view to finding a solution to this problem.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3854/97 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission (5 December 1997)

Subject: Publications of the European Environment Agency in the Community languages

The European Environment Agency was set up to facilitate the provision of information on the environment, develop and implement environment policy and ensure that this information is publicly available.

However, it should be pointed out that the abundant and high quality information provided by its reports and services is for the most part available only in English. This not only leads to discrimination but also reduces the efficiency and dissemination of the agency's work.

What measures is the Commission taking to overcome these limitations, which also contravene the regulation establishing the agency?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (14 January 1998)

The European environment agency (EEA) was established to provide objective, comparable and reliable information to the Community and Member States. According to Article 1.2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 of 7 May 1990 on the establishment of the European environment agency and the European Environment information and observation network ((OJ L 120, 11.5.1990. )), this information is principally for use by policy-makers in the framing and implementing of environmental policies. To achieve this goal, the agency was granted independent status with its work overseen by a management board. The agency's executive director is responsible to the board for the execution of the work programme and for the preparation and publication of agency reports. The agency is an independent body, financed by a subvention from the Community budget and it has its own procedures for financing and obtaining translations, by the translation centre in Luxembourg.

The Honourable Member can rest assured that the Commission is aware of the problem. The Commission's representatives on the management board have drawn attention to the need to publish more reports in other languages. The Commission also participates in the agency's task force on publications. This group was formed this year to consider how the agency could focus its efforts and develop a publications strategy which takes the question of translation fully into account. In doing so it must take into account that the translation of documents is largely a problem of resources. The Environment agency, in common with other European agencies, has the dilemma that committing further resources to translation will put pressure on the agency's operational activities and ability to carry out its work programme.

The Honourable Member's concerns are understood and the question has been passed on to the executive director of the agency with a request that he replies directly.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2906/97 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission (3 September 1997)

Subject: Extra charge levied on EU nationals' health-care bills in New York State

1. Is the Commission aware that New York State levies an extra charge of 32% on health-care costs incurred by visitors (tourists) from outside the US as a means of covering the health-care costs of poor (uninsured) Americans?

2. Does the Commission consider that this amounts to unlawful discrimination against non-US nationals compared with US nationals?

3. Does the Commission agree that this imposes unwarranted additional charges on EU nationals, possibly even causing them serious financial problems, if they fall sick in the US? At all events, European sickness and travel insurance policies do not cover these extra costs. EU citizens are now being forced either to take out extra insurance or to expose themselves to an unacceptable risk.

4. Does this practice contravene agreements concluded between the US and the EU (e.g. in relation to the WTO)?

5. What action will Commission take?

Supplementary answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (15 December 1997)

Further to its answer of 19 September 1997 ((OJ C 60, 25.2.1998, p. 140. )), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional information.

Information obtained to date by the Commission does not confirm that New York State levies an extra charge of 32% on health-care costs incurred by visitors (tourists) from outside the United States as a means of covering the health-care costs of poor (uninsured) Americans.

According to the information available, it seems that a 12% surcharge is claimed by hospitals, medical institutions and laboratories from Americans and non-Americans alike who are not members of a 'management care group' which is a less expensive form of health insurance which limits the choice of doctors and imposes caps on reimbursable expenses. This money serves to supplement a central fund which contributes to covering the medical expenses of the uninsured.

The Commission believes this is more a matter for the Member States than for the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3941/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (12 December 1997)

Subject: Creation of a Greek section in the third European school

Parents' representatives from the Greek section of the European school (No 1) in Brussels (UCCLE) have been collecting signatures in support of their efforts to obtain an additional Greek section in the third European school being built in Brussels. The opening of a Greek section is considered to be particularly necessary since the existing Greek section of the European school in Brussels (No 1) is suffering from overcrowding and the splitting of classes with the result that many Greek children are now attending Belgian schools, which deprives them of the possibility of learning their own language properly.

This is a particularly important issue and indicative of the sensitive approach required by a multicultural Europe towards the languages, cultures, and traditions of its various Member States.

What is the official position of the Commission on this matter? Is it intended to open an additional Greek section in the European school currently under construction as is the case concerning pupils of other nationalities?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (2 February 1998)

Educational policy and organisation are exclusively matters for the Board of Governors, which is the intergovernmental body responsible for the European schools. It will therefore be for the Board to decide, when the time comes, what language sections there are to be in the third European school, which is currently being built in Brussels. This decision will have to be taken in line with the principles on which the teaching system at the European schools is based.

As a member of the Board committed to the proper running of the European schools, the Commission will endeavour to ensure that these principles are respected.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3845/97 by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission (5 December 1997)

Subject: Information concerning EU enlargement

The enlargement of the EU is the greatest challenge facing Europe in the near future. The negotiations with the first applicant states are ready to start and after the Luxembourg summit the negotiations with the first candidates will probably be launched at the beginning of 1998. At the same time the interest in enlargement among the EU Member States' citizens is minuscule and getting smaller. Indeed, it is to be feared that the negative views expressed by politicians on the growing cost of membership and the loss of subsidies are spreading to the general public. Conversely, EMU is a good example of how no thought is given to forming public opinion until a late stage, and we now see the results of this, with the majority of EU Member States' citizens opposed to a single currency. What plans does the Commission have for the funding of an information campaign on enlargement, and what would be the substance of such a campaign?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (6 February 1998)

The Commission is well aware of the importance of the issue raised by the Honourable Member. There is a need for the governments in the candidate countries to raise awareness of the subject among their own populations and for the Community also to contribute to this process in the candidate countries and in the Member States.

The first is covered by allocations, usually under the heading 'European integration' which are granted to candidate countries under the normal Phare procedures following a request.

The Community's activities in the candidate countries in this field are primarily channelled through the Commission's delegations. They were only able to begin in 1997 after a measure of stability and predictability could be assured by the Parliament concerning funding under the Phare multi-country information programme. Under the 1997 allocation 5 MECU have been set aside to fund delegations' information activities, while central funding is being used to provide expertise.

With the support from the Phare multi-country information and communication programme, the Commission provides the services of its visitors' programme, Eurobarometer surveys and the flagship periodical 'European Dialogue' which appears every 2 months in all 10 central European languages.

The Commission's Website 'Europaplus' has proved very successful as an information tool for the general public, both in and outside the Community. As an example, the DG 1A website, which covers Central and Eastern Europe, receives over 500 000 visits per month. Information about enlargement and related issues is also available from the Commission's offices in the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3741/97 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (21 November 1997)

Subject: EU biodiversity strategy

Does the Commission have any plans to identify gaps in existing EU measures and policies to ensure biodiversity conservation?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 december 1997)

As a party to the Convention on biological diversity, the Community has, pursuant to Article 6, the obligation to prepare a biodiversity strategy.

Furthermore, the Council in its conclusions on 18 December 1995, took the view that with regard to matters within the field of its competence and in close cooperation with its Member States, the Community should prepare a Community strategy to identify gaps in the Community conservation policy, and to promote the integration of conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into the policies of the Community, complementary to the strategies, programmes and plans of the Member States, in order to ensure the full implementation of this convention.

Consequently, the Commission is finalizing a communication to the Council and to the Parliament on the Community biodiversity strategy. This strategy will identify gaps in existing Community measures and policies to ensure biodiversity conservation. The communication is foreseen to be transmitted to the Council and to the Parliament in early 1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3667/97 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1997)

Subject: BSE

Commission Decision 97/534/EU ((OJ L 216, 8.8.1997, p. 95. )) instructs all Member States to remove specified risk material (SRM) from the food chain. This decision is based on a recommendation from the Scientific Veterinary Committee that SRM should be removed in countries or regions where a potential risk is identified of the presence of TSE agents. The decision concludes, without more detailed documentation, that none of the Member States may be regarded as free from a potential risk of TSE.

There is a clear distinction between slaughter in Danish export slaughterhouses and the situation in other Member States on the following points:

- slaughter of Danish animals only as a result of US authorization,

- no cases of scrapie have ever been recorded and only one case of BSE has been reported in an animal imported from the UK,

- bans - which are observed - on imports of meat-and-bone meal since 1933 and the use of ruminants since 1990,

- BSE has been a notifiable disease since 1992.

Denmark is therefore officially free of BSE pursuant to Article 3.2.13.3 of the International Office of Epizootics' Animal Health Code.

1. What documentation does the Commission have to justify its claim that a potential risk of BSE has been identified in Denmark?

2. Why does the decision not allow for a Member State to be recognized as BSE-free, in line with Article 6(4), without setting aside the EU's veterinary regionalization principle?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 February 1998)

Article 6(4) of Decision 97/534/EC of 30 July 1997 on the prohibition of the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies ((OJ L 216, 8.8.1997. )) requires the Community to apply its provisions in accordance with 'international obligations'.

The text does not provide for derogations, either for third countries or Member States. Applications for recognition as transmissible spongiform encephalopathy free, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy free, have been made by several third countries and Member States, including Denmark. The Commission is entitled to propose this type of derogation for one or more Member States on the same legal basis as the above decision.

Following a request from the Commission, the scientific steering committee is presently preparing a harmonised list of criteria against which all applications for recognition as transmissible spongiform encephalopathy free, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy free, will be evaluated and on the basis of which countries may possibly be requested to provide additional information. The scientific steering committee finalized this list on 26 January 1998. The various applications received so far (including Denmark) will then rapidly be evaluated.

The Commission cannot take a position with respect to the situation in any individual Member State until it has received the necessary scientific advice. The Commission will evaluate the situation on this issue as soon as this advice is available.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3633/97 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)

Subject: Guarantees required in respect of participation in the employment initiative in the Netherlands

As has already been pointed out in earlier questions, the Italian authorities' decision to require non-profit-making undertakings to provide bank guarantees in order to participate in employment initiatives has proved costly and punitive for undertakings which obviously have difficulty in providing financial guarantees of their own.

Given that such matters are subject to different regulations in the various Member States of the Union, would the Commission state whether the Netherlands requires non-profit-making undertakings (and, in general, firms in the cooperative, mutual and non-profit sector) to provide financial or bank guarantees and, if so, on what terms?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-3624/97, E-3625/97, E-3626/97, E-3627/97, E-3628/97, E-3629/97, E-3630/97, E-3631/97, E-3632/97, E-3633/97, E-3634/97, E-3635/97, E-3636/97 and E-3637/97 given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (30 January 1998)

The Commission has no information on the obligation imposed by Member States on non-profit organisations to provide a bank guarantee in order to gain access to funding under the various Community programmes. This is a matter of national law.

As regards the granting of subsidies under the Employment initiative, it is up to the national authorities which sign the agreements with the project promoters to require bank guarantees in accordance with the national rules in force. In Austria, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain, such guarantees are not normally required from potential promoters to gain access to the Employment initiative.

While it is true that the provision of a bank guarantee may be an additional burden, particularly for enterprises operating in the context of the social economy, it is nonetheless true that this is essential when the consequences of failing to fulfil a contractual obligation may exceed the debtor's financial means.

The Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities of 21 December 1977 ((OJ L 356, 31.12.1977. )), as last amended ((OJ L 240, 7.6.1995. )), requires the provision of security by contractors when very large contracts are awarded or when subsidies are granted for the performance of projects involving high sums. However, the majority of non-profit associations are rarely affected by this obligation, given the small scale of the projects they propose.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-4173/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (21 January 1998)

Subject: Cohesion policy and culture

In its communication COM(96) 512 final, Cohesion Policy and Culture: A contribution to employment (page 6), the Commission notes that approximately ECU 400 million under the Structural Fund programmes went directly to the cultural sector during the period 1989-1993.

Can the Commission say what cultural projects were cofinanced, specifying the countries involved, the regional objective under which each project came, the total cost of execution and the amount cofinanced by the Community?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-4173/97 and E-4174/97 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (9 March 1998)

The figure mentioned by the Honourable Member is based on an estimation carried out by external consultants for the Commission. As was pointed out in the communication, any figures relating to cultural activities are only estimates and therefore have to be interpreted with some caution. In particular, it is especially difficult to identify cultural aspects in programmes as they are often included under other priorities such as tourism, small and medium sized enterprises (SME) or training.

Given that the Member States approve and implement structural funds projects within programmes under their own responsibility, the Commission does not have any systematic information on projects in the area of culture. However several good examples were presented in the communication illustrating innovative integration of culture into regional development and job creation.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3943/97 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission (12 December 1997)

Subject: Degrees awarded by 'cowboy' universities

In Europe more and more degrees are being awarded by 'cowboy' universities which make empty promises about providing recognized academic qualifications. Recent discussions have centred on certain UK universities which, owing to a funding crisis, have had to tempt 'correspondence course students' from round the world. The majority of European universities are recognized, high-quality educational establishments, but some of them have no official place in any country's education system.

In view of the above, how does the Commission intend to take action against these 'cowboy' universities in the EU in order to prevent their activities from jeopardizing the objective of mutual recognition of degrees in the EU Member States? How does the Commission intend to prevent these 'cowboy' universities from issuing worthless degrees and certificates whose substance contravenes national legislation, e.g. in Finland the University Degrees Regulation?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (12 February 1998)

Article 126 of the EC Treaty states that 'The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity.'

It follows from this that the validation of a Member State's diplomas and educational establishments is a matter for the national authorities. In theory, each Member State has mechanisms for preventing the proliferation of diplomas that are not officially approved or are of dubious quality.

Any citizen wanting information on the status of educational establishments located in his or her own Member State or in other Member States may contact one of the National Academic Recognition Centres (NARIC), which form a Community network created on the initiative of the Commission. A list containing the details of these Centres has been sent direct to the Honourable Member, as well as to the European Parliament's Secretariat.