WRITTEN QUESTION E-0593/01 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission. Mutual recognition of educational qualifications within the European Union.
Date: 2001-03-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, United Kingdom, application of EU law, free movement of workers, recognition of vocational training qualifications, right of establishment, teacher

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/155

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

Where the public authorities of a Member State procure goods, works or services, there is an obligation to
comply with the Community directives on public procurement. More specifically,
in the case of the
procurement of road safety barriers by the British Highways Agency, there is an obligation to comply with
Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993, co-ordinating procedures for the award of public supply
contracts (1).

Directive 93/36/EEC imposes a broad range of requirements, including an obligation for Community-wide
advertising, the selection of candidates based on specified criteria and the use of non-discriminatory
technical criteria in any contract documentation. As regards the latter requirement, Directive 93/36/EEC
states that where European standards exist, then as a general rule public authorities must specify their
requirements by reference to those standards. There are a number of exceptions to this rule, including
where the European standard does not contain provision for establishing conformity of a product to the
relevant standard and, in certain circumstances only, where use of European standards would oblige the
contracting authority to acquire supplies which are incompatible with equipment already in use. Deroga-
tions from the general rule have to be interpreted restrictively.

The European Norm (EN) 1317 is designed to establish a European standard for road restraint systems and
contains six parts. Part 1 concerns terminology and general test criteria for test methods of road restraint
systems. Part 2 deals with performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for safety
barriers. Part 3 addresses performance classes, impact test acceptance criteria and test methods for crash
cushions. Parts 1, 2 and 3 have been approved by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) as
European Standards. Parts 4, 5 and 6 of EN 1317 which concern terminals and transitions of safety
barriers, durability and evaluation of road restraint system conformity and pedestrian parapets, are
awaiting approval by CEN and are formally not yet European Standards.

An investigation has begun in another Member State concerning its use of a standard which would appear
to conflict with EN 1317. A number of questions have been raised with that Member State which has been
asked to justify why it did not specify its requirements in procurement contract documentation by
reference to the relevant European Standard. The investigation has only recently begun and the Commi-
ssion has not yet received the Member State(cid:146)s reply.

The Commission does not have specific information concerning the United Kingdom(cid:146)s use or otherwise of
EN 1317 in relation to the procurement of road safety barriers. The Commission now intends to write to
the United Kingdom authorities in this respect.

(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993.

(2001/C 261 E/179)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0593/01

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: Mutual recognition of educational qualifications within the European Union

Further to an enquiry from my constituent, John Spencer, who lives at 68 Plains Field, Beckers Green,
Braintree, Essex, CM7 3PD, is the Commission aware that this person was not given equal treatment as a
teacher in Austria, despite his attainment of a Post-Graduate Certificate in Education from the University of
Cambridge, in contravention of Council Directive 89/48/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 on a general system
for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and
training of at least three years(cid:146) duration (incorporated in 294A0103(38) (2) and 294A0103(57) (3))?

C 261 E/156

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

Will the Commission investigate this case and determine whether John Spencer(cid:146)s rights under Directive 89/
48/EEC have been breached?

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 206.
(3) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 371.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the case of Mr John Spencer. If the Commission is to take up the matter
with the Austrian authorities and to investigate this case it needs more information. The Commission
therefore plans to write to Mr Spencer directly to ask him for the relevant documents and information.

(2001/C 261 E/180)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0596/01

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 March 2001)

Subject: The Primarolo Group

1.

Does the Primarolo Group still exist?

Does it continue to hold meetings? If so please could the Commission give details of the future

2.
meetings scheduled, including date and venue.

3.
The Code of Conduct Group submitted its final report in November and must therefore have fulfilled
the remit granted it by the Council in January 1998. If the Code of Conduct Group is still functioning,
could the Commission explain why, given that the task assigned to the Group by the Council has now
been completed?

4. What further remit has been granted to the Code of Conduct Group to enable it to extend its
activities beyond the scope of the Council resolution of January 1998? What further tasks has the Group
been given? Which Council meeting agreed to grant the Code of Conduct Group a New mandate and
remit?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2001)

The Code of Conduct Group (1) was established by the Ecofin Council of 9 March 1998 (2) to assess the tax
measures that may fall within the scope of the Code of Conduct for business taxation (3). Accordingly, the
Code of Conduct Group is a Council Group that was set up to operate within the framework of the
Council. Therefore any questions concerning its work, mandate or remit should be addressed to the
Council, not to the Commission.

(1)

In common parlance and notably in the press coverage the Code of Conduct Group (business taxation) has often
been referred to as (cid:145)the Primarolo Group(cid:146).

(2) Ecofin Council conclusions of 9 March 1998 (OJ C 99, 1.4.1998).
(3) Ecofin Council conclusions of 1 December 1997 (OJ C 2, 6.1.1998).