WRITTEN QUESTION E-2612/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Freedom of movement for minors who are refused passports.
Date: 2000-08-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: child, competence of the Member States, free movement of persons, infringement of EU law, passport

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/197

Is the Commission aware of these facts with respect to UEFA? Has it sought clarification from UEFA with
regard to the procedure followed with a view to verifying whether or not the fundamental legal guarantees
to which all European citizens,
including professional football players and, at a different level, their
respective clubs, are entitled, have been ignored? If it is established that the right to a prior hearing has
been violated, what action will the Commission take on this matter, including vis-(cid:224)-vis UEFA?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2000)

The Honourable Member has asked whether the Commission can intervene following incidents during the
EURO 2000 match between France and Portugal which led UEFA to impose suspensions on Portuguese
players.

judgments,

The Commission would like to point out that in 1974 the Court of Justice established the principle that
(cid:145)the practice of sport is subject to Community law only in so far as it constitutes an economic activity(cid:146) (1).
including the Bosman judgment (2), to which the Honourable Member refers, have
Several
subsequently confirmed this. The Commission has always sought to enforce this principle, and has
reiterated it in the (cid:145)Helsinki Report on Sport(cid:146) of 5 December 2000 (3). In this report the Commission, in
Justice case law, makes a distinction between practices which come under the
line with Court of
competition rules, those which are, in principle, prohibited by the competition rules, and those likely to
be exempted from the competition rules. It thus feels that the rules of the game are inherent to sport, and
their aim is not to distort competition.

In the case raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission considers that the incidents which occurred
and the penalties imposed come under the rules of the game, involving assessment by the arbitration
authorities and application of the disciplinary powers which take effect when these rules are violated. The
Commission therefore cannot intervene.

However, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member that,
in accordance with Court of
Justice case law, the principles of legal certainty, the right of defence and the right of appeal (4) are among
the general principles of Community law. Any Community nationals who feel that their rights under
Community law, e.g. the right to freedom of movement, have been infringed can therefore assert these
rights before a national court.

(1) See judgment of 12 December 1974, Walrave (36/74, ECR 1405).
(2) See judgment of 15 December 1995, Bosman (C-415/93, ECR 1995, I-4921).
(3)

(cid:145)Report from the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and
maintaining the social
(Helsinki Report on Sport),
COM(1999) 644 final.

function of sport within the Community framework(cid:146)

(4) See, for example, judgment of 15 October 1987, Unectef v. Heylens and others (222/86 ECR 4097).

(2001/C 103 E/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2612/00

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Freedom of movement for minors who are refused passports

Is it compatible with the Council of Europe(cid:146)s Convention on human rights for a Member State to deny a
citizen (minor) the right to hold a passport, even a temporary one, if one parent or guardian withholds
approval? Free movement of persons within the EU should surely also apply to EU citizens who are
minors, but it thus does not appear to apply if one parent or guardian stands in the way. What is the
Commission(cid:146)s view of this infringement of a basic principle of the Treaty?

C 103 E/198

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2000)

It is up to the national authorities to protect the welfare of minors and to safeguard them against
disappearance or abduction, for which one of the parents is often responsible. This is why the issue of
passports for minors generally requires both parents(cid:146) consent.

The Commission believes that this practice is in accordance with Community law. In cases where the
parents disagree, it is up to the national courts to judge the situation and rule whether or not the passport
should be issued, if one of the parents is liable to abuse his or her rights.

(2001/C 103 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2613/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Subject: Live transport of farm animals

Recent replies from the Commission to questions on the live transport of animals have indicated that the
Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) is very aware of the animal welfare problems that continue to exist as a
result of a failure of many Member States to take their enforcement responsibilities seriously. More
inspections by the FVO, specifically on the welfare of animals during transport and to establish the extent
to which Directives 91/628/EEC (1) and 95/29/EC (2) are being enforced, could well improve the situation.

In view of the fact that the number of such inspections and the number of inspectors working in this field
have been woefully inadequate in recent years, could the Commission please answer the following
questions:

1. What initiatives will the Commission take regarding the non-compliance of Member States with

Directives 91/628/EEC and 95/29/EC?

2. What steps has the Commission taken to increase the number of inspections on animal transport?

3. How many inspections have taken place in the first six months of this year (please specify where,

when, by whom and exact number of inspections?

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.
(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2000)

In the last year a working group of the standing veterinary committee, with representatives from
1.
each of the Member States, has focused on the difficulties arising from the proper enforcement of current
Community legislation in the field. The Commission will continue with this and similar initiatives in order
to improve the level of co-operation between Member States on this issue and to increase the level of
enforcement of Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during
transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (as amended by Council Directive 95/29/
EC of 29 June 1995). Day-to-day enforcement of the Directive is the responsibility of the Member States.
The Commission veterinary inspectors carry out periodic on-the-spot checks to ensure that the require-
ments of these texts are being properly enforced. Incidents of non-compliance with the directives are
brought to the attention of the Member State concerned at the end of each inspection mission and more
formally in the subsequent mission report. Similarly, if animal welfare societies or, indeed, members of the