WRITTEN QUESTION E-1424/01 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Freedom to engage in sports professions.
Date: 2001-05-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, competence of the Member States, labour law, occupational status, professional sport, recognition of vocational training qualifications, sports body

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.

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/153

As regards the situation of sports technicians from non-Member countries and Italian sports technicians,
I would refer the Honourable Member of Parliament to the answer given to Written Question E-3976/00.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 205.

(2001/C 350 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1432/01

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Subject: Is Arenas (cid:129) golf courses remain open despite reasoned opinion

On 9 February the European Commission issued a reasoned opinion on failure to apply the Habitats
Directive (92/43) at the Is Arenas resort in Narbolia (Sardinia), where a golf course was built without any
appropriate environmental impact assessment being carried out. Although the deadline for complying with
the provisions of the reasoned opinion has expired, the course is regularly open on Wednesdays, Saturdays
and Sundays, according to the statement made by Pier Maria Pell(cid:242), the Is Arenas company(cid:146)s administrator,
to the monthly (cid:145)La Gazetta Sarda(cid:146) (March 2001 issue). The Is Arenas company advertises the golf course as
being (cid:145)open all year round, every day, including Monday(cid:146) and regularly hosts 17 golf tournaments from
May to the end of the year [http://www.isarenas.it].

The property company(cid:146)s website advertises the following amenities as already available: 18-hole golf
course, par 72; 3-hole course, par 3 executive and training course; club house with restaurant; fully
equipped changing rooms.

As regards watering arrangements for the golf course, the company has apparently built 24 artesian wells,
all inside the Is Arenas SIC (site of community interest) ITB002228, by drilling to a depth of over 200
metres without any meters being installed to keep a check on water extraction.

The same reasoned opinion confirms that there is a serious risk of groundwater pollution both through
salination, which the property company itself recognises as having already begun, and through the
pesticides and chemical fertilisers used to maintain the grass surface, which are posing a threat to the site
as a whole and the three priority habitats within it.

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to close down these golf courses in order to preserve this
(cid:145)site of community interest(cid:146) from irreversible degradation?

What measures does the Commission intend to take to remedy the environmental damage caused by
deforestation, the building of the golf resort and water extraction?

What measures does it intend to take to ensure that the public authorities responsible for granting
permission to build the golf amenities (Sardinia Region and Narbolia municipality) reverse their decision
(municipal building authorisations of 25 February and 21 May 1999 and regional resolution 899 of
14 April 2000)?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The information mentioned by the Honourable Member concerns a situation which is covered by an open
infringement procedure under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty. The contents of infringment
procedures are confidential. The response of the Italian authorities to the reasoned opinion mentioned by
the Honourable Member is currently under the assessment of the Commission.

The Commission has no power to issue orders to national administrations of Member States. Where the
Commission considers that a Member State has failed to comply with Community law,
it may start
infringement procedures:
it may formally request the Member State to communicate information and
observations on a certain case (letter of formal notice), it may deliver as its reasoned opinion that a certain
Member State has failed to comply with its obligations under the EC Treaty and it may bring the case