WRITTEN QUESTION E-3099/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. European report on the quality of school education.
Date: 2000-10-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, Flemish Community, French-speaking Community, comparative education, exchange of information, statistical method, teaching

C 113 E/242

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

Will the Commission say precisely what legal difficulties are involved and which financial year they relate
to?

Will it say exactly what needs to be done before these legal obstacles can be removed, and within what
period they might be removed?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2000)

The question of the existence of budget headings having no legal basis, which,
inter alia, concerns
measures in support of regional and minority languages and cultures, was thoroughly examined by the
Commission in the context of the execution of the 2000 budget and in the light of the interpretation of
the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 (1) between the European Parliament, the Council and the
Commission.

In the case of the topic raised by the Honourable Member, this examination resulted in the publication of a
call for proposals on 16 September 2000.

The invitation to tender for the study in question was published on 20 October 2000.

(1) OJ C 172, 18.6.1999.

(2001/C 113 E/265)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3099/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Subject: European report on the quality of school education

In its answer to questions E-2357/00 and E-2358/00 (1) the Commission explains the methodology
(no distinction between the data for the Flemish and French communities) it uses in its European Report
on Quality of School Education for the Belgian Federation. However, it fails to say anything about the
central issue (the distorted and unfair picture of education in the Belgian Federation).

Does the Commission acknowledge that its methodology gives a distorted and unfair picture of
1.
education in the Belgian Federation? If not, how does the Commission defend its choice of methodology,
given that education in the Belgian Federation is unequivocally the responsibility of the communities?

In the light of the division of powers in the Belgian Federation, will the Commission in future
2.
distinguish between the Flemish and the French communities? If not, why does the Commission refuse to
take account of the division of powers in the Belgian Federation and why does it not make a distinction in
its data on education?

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2000)

The Commission has outlined the methodology used for the preparation of the European report on quality
of school education in its previous answers to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written questions E-2357/00 and
E-2358/00 (1).

The Commission obviously respects the constitutional situation of the countries involved in its studies and
reports. The Commission is fully aware of the fact that in certain countries the responsabilities for
education lie at regional level.

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/243

The general aim of the Commission when presenting statistical data on education is to illustrate the
national situation and comparisons between countries. In the report, all tables clearly indicate whether data
refers to the overall situation in Belgium or to the communities separately. Therefore, the Commission is
of the opinion that the data in the report does not present (cid:145)a distorted or unfair picture(cid:146) of the situation in
Belgium.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001.

(2001/C 113 E/266)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3104/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Investor-compensation scheme

Under Directive 97/9/EC (1) each Member State is obliged to ensure that within its territory one or more
investor-compensation schemes is introduced and officially recognised. Under this scheme, if the compe-
tent or judicial authority considers that an investment firm is unable to meet its obligations to its investors
compensation of not less than EUR 20 000 per investor is set. It should be noted that no authorised
investment firm may carry on investment business unless it belongs to such a scheme and that the
Member States must ensure that investment firms provide their investors with the necessary information
on the existence and operation of an investor-compensation scheme.

Could the Commission give information on:

1.

the extent to which this directive is being applied in Greece,

2. whether the competent Greek authorities have communicated to the Commission the text of the main

provisions of national law which they have adopted with regard to the above directive,

3. whether the authorities ensure that Greek investors are aware of the existence and operation of the

compensation scheme, and

4. why the Commission has not submitted a report to Parliament and the Council on the application of
the directive, as laid down by Article 14 thereof, and which Member States have not notified details of
the implementation of the directive?

(1) OJ L 84, 26.3.1997, p. 22.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2000)

All Member States have notified national measures transposing Directive 97/9/EC of the Parliament and of
the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes.

Greece has implemented Directive 97/9/EC through Law 2533/1997. The legal status of the Greek scheme
is that of a legal person under private law, subject to the supervision of the capital market commission.
The actions of the scheme and the performance of its statutory duties are therefore subject to challenge
under Greek private law.

The annex to the Commission report on the application of the export prohibition clause (Article 7(1))
provides a synthetic view of the implementation of Directive 97/9/EC on investor compensation schemes
in the European economic area (EEA) states. This provides a detailed indication of the situation as it
prevailed at the end of 1999. This extensive presentation is nevertheless incomplete as a result of the lack
of qualitative experience with the practical operation of the Directive and the national schemes in the short
period since its entry into force (September 1998).