WRITTEN QUESTION E-2479/99 by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) and Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) to the Commission. Directive 96/67/EC.
Date: 1999-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European official, Italy, abuse of power, airport, freedom to provide services, national implementing measure

24.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303 E/67

5. Will the Council request vzw Museum van Europa to apply in the museum, correctly and in its
entirety, the language legislation of the Belgian Federation, since such legislation can be regarded as a form
of mutual respect for languages and cultures? If not, why not, given that failure to apply such legislation
would detract from mutual respect for languages and cultures in the Belgian Federation?

Reply

(10/11 April 2000)

At its meeting on 23 November 1999, the Council was informed by the Greek delegation of the project
for the creation of a European Museum. On that occasion,
it noted the concerns expressed by that
delegation regarding the objectives and priorities for the project, as conceived by the Belgian association
under private law which is organising it.

The Council has never had any direct contact with the non-profitmaking organisation in question.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, under the Treaty,
the Community is to
contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States while respecting their national and
regional diversities and bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore.

In the context of its competence in this respect, and if the matter is directly referred to it, the Council will
adopt an appropriate position.

(2000/C 303 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2479/99

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) and Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Directive 96/67/EC

1.
By letter of 7 September 1999, the Director-General of the Commission(cid:146)s Directorate-General VIII
(Transport), Mr Robert Coleman, informed the Italian Government that he had some misgivings as to the
compatibility with Community law of certain provisions of Decree Law No. 18 of 13 January 1999. In his
opinion, Articles 13, 14 and 20 of the Decree Law, which concern not only the qualifications required of
those providing ground-handling services but also social protection, formed an obstacle to the opening-up
of the market sought by Council Directive 96/67/EC.

2.
Recital 6 of the Council directive, however, confirms the right of the Member States, in the light of
the principle of subsidiarity, to take into consideration the specific, in other words national, nature of the
sector, recital 10 the right of the Member States to introduce this directive gradually, recital 8 the need to
take account of employment conditions, in other words established employment conditions, at airports,
recital 24 the right of the Member States to ensure an adequate level of social protection for the staff of
undertakings providing ground-handling services, and Article 18, finally, the right of the Member States to
take the necessary measures to ensure protection of the rights of workers.

3.
It is well-known that, given the existence of high unemployment, protection of employment levels
and of the employment conditions of employed workers is a matter of major concern and action on the
part of the main Institutions of the European Union (cid:129) the Council, the Commission and Parliament.

In view of these facts, and given that Mr Coleman(cid:146)s letter of 7 September 1999 to the Italian Government
is clearly unjustified, can the Commission say whether it intends to take action to remedy this situation so
as to comply rigorously with the letter and fundamental principles of Community law and, in addition,
what action it intends to take with regard to officials, such as Mr Coleman, whose actions on behalf of the
Commission far exceed their authority?

C 303 E/68

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

As the guardian of the Community(cid:146)s legal system, the Commission must ensure that the treaty, and the
action taken by the institutions in pursuance thereof, is properly implemented. Those activities relate not
only to the transposition, per se, of the directives into national law, but also compliance by national laws
with the substance of the rules applying at Community level.

Article 18 of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 (1) on access to the ground-handling market
at Community airports provides that Member States may take the necessary measures to ensure protection
of the rights of workers and respect for the environment, but also that such action must be taken without
prejudice to the application of the directive, and subject to the other provisions of Community law. The
aim of the directive is to ensure free access to the market for the supply of ground-handling services in
terms both of self-handling and the provision of services by third-parties. That opening is being conducted
in stages, in accordance with the timetable laid down by Article 1 of the Directive. In order to meet these
conditions, the provisions of the Ministerial order transposing the directive must not prevent the principle
of free access being applied by introducing restrictive rules solely for the sector concerned.

The provisions of the decree transposing the directive into national law and enabling extensive discre-
tionary powers to be conferred on the authorities, during the selection procedure, in order to restrict that
free market access takes no account of the aims of the directive as set out, in particular, in recitals 14 and
15 thereof, and would seem to infringe the provisions of Articles 6, 7, 11, 14 and 18. As provided for in
Article 226 (former Article 169) of the EC Treaty, the Commission is therefore required to take any action
needed in order to ensure that the Community standard is transposed and implemented correctly. The
letter to the Italian authorities referred to was written precisely in order to ensure a consistency of this
kind.

(1) OJ L 272, 25.10.1996.

(2000/C 303 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2496/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Measures to facilitate Community-wide health care

Everyone knows that individual Member States have raised objections to the proposal to authorise their
citizens to travel abroad for treatment to be reimbursed by the patient(cid:146)s country of origin when such
treatment is not really feasible in that country.

However, everyone also knows that people are often prevented from making such (cid:145)journeys of hope(cid:146) for
bureaucratic and mere financial reasons, even when the journeys are perfectly justified.

Can the Commission say what can be done at European level to ensure that Community citizens are
allowed, or at least enabled, to obtain treatment, without financial burdens or at least on acceptable terms
B and hence without excessive expense (as is the case at present) (cid:129) in all Community hospitals?

Might it be possible for a European fund to be set up for this purpose?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2000)

The question concerns the possibility for Community citizens of travelling to a Member State other than
their country of residence to obtain medical treatment. This possibility depends on two legal bases.