WRITTEN QUESTION E-1423/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Immigration and integration.
Date: 2001-05-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU migration policy, Germany, integration of migrants, language teaching, residence permit

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/151

Following the publication of the Green Paper on the security of energy supply (3), the debate on the
selection of alternative fuels, including hydrogen, has also now been initiated. In addition, the Commission
is currently drawing up a communication on alternative fuels and vehicles in which hydrogen will have
a prime role.

(1) The cities taking part in the CUTE (Clean Urban Transport in Europe) and ECTOS projects are: Amsterdam,

Barcelona, Hamburg, London, Luxembourg, Madrid, Porto, Reykjavik, Stockholm and Stuttgart.

(2) COM(2001) 94 final.
(3) COM(2000) 769 final.

(2001/C 350 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1423/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Immigration and integration

It was recently reported that the German Government has drafted a law designed to introduce courses in
German and make them compulsory for people from outside the Community. The law apparently makes
provision for sanctions if people fail to learn the language. In the most serious cases the sanctions may
entail deportation.

Once again an EU country has acted independently from the other Member States in the field of
immigration, demonstrating that we are still
far from having a joint policy for tackling the real
implications of the issue.

Has the Commission examined the German draft law to assess whether it is compatible with

1.
European legislation on immigration?

2.
Does it have plans to take action aimed at treating the phenomenon as a European one and
introducing a unified policy for dealing with it, determining precisely the cases in which expulsion is
necessary?

Does it not consider that the German approach, with the appropriate adjustments,

is likely to
3.
integrate those non-Community citizens who decide to live in Europe and could enrich the Union if they
were not forced to live on the margins of society?

Does it not consider it appropriate to introduce a policy of allocating residence permits which
4.
depends not only on the behaviour of immigrants but also on whether they actually learn the language of
the host country?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

With respect to the Commission(cid:146)s proposals for a new and comprehensive approach to the management of
migration flows and in particular for a common policy on immigration, the Honourable Member is
referred to the Commission(cid:146)s reply to Written Question E-1273/01 by Mr HernÆndez Mollar (1).

The Commission is aware that the German government is currently re-examining its immigration laws and
informal discussions have taken place with representatives of the Federal Republic, as with all Member
States, with respect to the draft directive on admission of third country nationals for employment (2). The
Commission cannot, however, comment on the provisions of the draft German law referred to by the
Honourable Member.

With respect to the integration of migrants, the common legal framework is expected to concern inter alia
the rights to be granted to migrants admitted and other matters which must be notified to the
Commission. It is intended that an open method of coordination for the Community immigration policy (3)
will provide a mechanism for the evaluation of best practice and the gradual establishment of common
norms and standards in the area of integration, as in other aspects of immigration policy.

C 350 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

While knowledge of the language of the country of residence is clearly an important element in the
successful
integration of third country nationals, the responsibility for integration policy lies with the
Member State, since it must reflect the particular national situation.

(1) See page 108.
(2) Proposal for a directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid

employment and self-employment economic activities COM(2001) 386 of 12 July 2001.

(3) Communication from the Commission on an open method of coordination for the Community immigration policy

(COM(2001) 387 of 12 July 2001.

(2001/C 350 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1424/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Freedom to engage in sports professions

As the Commission knows, Italians qualified as (cid:145)sports technicians(cid:146) cannot work as such unless they are
registered with CONI (1), since their profession is not regulated. Since Italy has not transposed Directive
92/51/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education
and training, the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings. In view of CONI(cid:146)s monopoly and
until the legal and social implications of the situation are clarified, tens of thousands of sports technicians
are working unofficially, i.e. illegally, but openly. Outside CONI there is no legal recognition of sport as
a profession.

Is this situation compatible with the smooth functioning of the internal market in the sports sector? In
other words, is there any justification for the existence on this market of a (cid:145)no man(cid:146)s land(cid:146) as far as the
exercise of certain professions is concerned? Even though recognition is up to the national authorities,
does not the impossibility of exercising the profession interfere with the functioning of the market?

If a (cid:145)sports technician(cid:146) from outside the Community can be authorised to work as such in Italy, what
justification is there for preventing an Italian national from doing the same?

Sport, especially in certain sectors such as football, is now a great economic investment. If the activity is
legally recognised by only one body, does this not constitute a monopoly?

If it does, is the existence of monopolies in the Union acceptable, even if only in the sector of sport, which
incidentally has a turnover of thousands of billions of lire each year?

(1) CONI: Italian National Olympic Committee.
(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 25.

Answer given by M. Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2001)

As the Commission stated in its answer to Written Question E-3976/00 (1), in accordance with Article 149
(ex-Article 126) of the EC Treaty, the Member States are responsible for the content of teaching and the
organisation of their education systems. Each Member State is thus free to choose whether to regulate
a profession on its territory, to set out the arrangements for this and to determine the level and type of
diploma required to exercise it. The Commission cannot
intervene in this area, which is the sole
responsibility of the Member States. Consequently, the fact that a profession such as (cid:145)sports technician(cid:146) in
Italy is not regulated and the fact that professional sport is placed under the aegis of CONI are not in
themselves incompatible with the proper functioning of the internal market.