WRITTEN QUESTION P-2817/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission. Fulfilment by applicant countries of the convergence and stability pact criteria.
Date: 2000-09-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accession criteria, convergence criteria, stability pact

C 89 E/224

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

In this context, the two main legal instruments of Community law aimed at facilitating the free movement
within the Community of professionals pursuing regulated professions are, depending on the level of
studies attested by the diploma concerned, Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a
general system for recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional
education and training of at least three years(cid:146) duration (1), and 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 (2).

However, Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC did not establish a system of automatic equivalence
between diplomas and there is no list of diplomas which is automatically recognised at European level.
In fact, a diploma is recognised not in its own right, but in terms of the profession to which it gives access
in the Member State which awarded it. It is up to the person concerned to apply individually to the
national authority, stating clearly the profession they wish to pursue. The decision of the national authority
is also taken individually, on duly substantiated grounds.
there is no
Community mechanism by which the diplomas obtained in one Member State are automatically
recognised officially in the other Member States.

In others words, at present

The basic principle of the above-mentioned Directives is that the host Member State is responsible for
authorising the pursuit of a regulated profession on its territory by a professional in possession of the
diploma prescribed in the Member State of provenance for taking up that profession. In order to be
covered by the Directives, the person concerned must be a fully qualified professional who is able to
pursue, without any further training, the profession concerned in the Member State of provenance.

However, the recognition provided for by the Directives in question is not automatic and the authority in
the host Member State may,
in certain circumstances, require of migrant professionals compensatory
measures such as an aptitude test or an adaptation period not exceeding three years. Professional
experience may also be required in certain cases.

Consequently, the Spanish authorities may, whilst observing the terms set out in the Directives, make the
professional recognition of psychology diplomas awarded in the United Kingdom subject to certain
compensatory measures.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.
(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(2001/C 89 E/256)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2817/00

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Fulfilment by applicant countries of the convergence and stability pact criteria

Will the Commission state which of the EMU convergence criteria and which of the stability and growth
pact criteria countries applying for EU membership are required to meet in full before they can be
admitted to the EU, and from which of them they could expect to be granted derogations?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2000)

Respect of the convergence criteria has never been a requirement for membership of the Community but
is necessary for adoption of the single currency and entry to the euro area. Applicant countries will not be
assessed for their readiness to adopt the euro until after their accession to the Community. While progress
towards real convergence and macro-economic stability should be pursued by applicant countries during
the pre-accession period, respect of the convergence criteria and of the stability and growth pact objectives
is therefore not a pre-condition for Community membership. The accession treaty will need to confirm the

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/225

status of the new Member States as Member States with a derogation, the implications of which are listed
in Article 122(3) (ex Article 109k) of the EC Treaty. On becoming members of the Community the
applicant countries will become subject to the procedures of the EC Treaty (especially Articles 104 (cid:129)
ex Article 104c (cid:129) and 122) and of the stability and growth pact.

(2001/C 89 E/257)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2825/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: Postponement of national

implementing provisions with regard to Directive 98/44/EC on the
granting of patents on living organisms until the Court of Justice has ruled on an action to have it
declared null and void

1.
Is the Commission aware that the national parliaments of various Member States (the Netherlands,
France, Germany and Italy) have expressed serious concerns about the implementation of Directive 98/44/
EC (1) on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, with particular regard to those sections which
would enable undertakings to acquire ownership rights in respect of genetically modified plants and
animals, and that, on 14 June 2000, the Netherlands Second Chamber decided to ask the President of the
European Court of Justice immediately to suspend implementation of the Directive until such time as the
Court had given its ruling on an earlier action to have it declared null and void, an action supported by the
Italian Republic?

2.
Given that, on 25 July 2000, the President of the Court rejected the request submitted by the
Netherlands and Italy, what is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the implications if, prior to the final Court ruling
expected in 2002, patents were granted to undertakings on the basis of national implementing provisions
and such patents were subsequently declared null and void by the Court? In that event, would the national
government be liable for any claims for compensation, or would such claims have to be settled by the
European Union?

3. What possibilities do the Member States have to prevent patents from being granted before the Court
has delivered its final ruling so that there would be no possibility of claims for compensation arising?

4. What possibilities do the Member States have of postponing the introduction of the implementing
provisions required of them until the Court of Justice has ruled on the action to have the Directive
declared null and void, and what possibilities may be granted to them in this particular instance, should
they not be authorised to postpone that introduction? What is the Commission doing to broaden the
possibility of postponement, where necessary?

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

1.
The Commission is aware that concern has been expressed about certain aspects of Directive 98/44/
EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological
inventions (1) ((cid:145)the directive(cid:146)). This, as the Honourable Member mentions, has led the Netherlands to bring
an action before the Court of justice seeking annulment of the directive. The Netherlands is supported in
this action by Italy. It is also true that, more recently, the Netherlands asked the Court to suspend
implementation of the directive pending its decision in the main case. On 25 July 2000, this request for
interim measures was rejected by the President of the Court.

One of the grounds for rejection of the Netherlands(cid:146) request was the fact that, given the time
2.
generally taken by national patent offices for examining patent applications,
it was unlikely that any
patents would be granted under the directive before the date of the Court(cid:146)s judgment in the main case
referred to above. The President of the Court also noted that the Netherlands has legal mechanisms which
it could use when granting such patents in order to prevent any damage being caused. Thus, conditions
could be attached to the grant which would make it clear that its validity depended on the legality of
the directive being upheld. It therefore seems vary unlikely that any question of claims for compensation
could arise.