WRITTEN QUESTION E-2092/01 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Conformity with the?Architecture Directive' — recognition of specialised courses of study.
Date: 2001-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EFTA, European Economic Area, Liechtenstein, international negotiations, recognition of diplomas, town-planning profession

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/59

The premature closing-off of the draft Risk Assessment Report (RAR) means that potentially important
research conducted by the industry may not be taken into account. This could mean that Parliament will
be considering legislation which is flawed.

Will the Commission explain why discussions on the zinc dossiers could be concluded without taking into
account all relevant and new research and thereby ensuring that a risk assessment in this field is based on
the best available scientific knowledge?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2082/01, E-2127/01, E-2348/01 and P-2681/01
given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2001)

The six zinc compounds undergoing risk assessment following Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93 of
23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances, were prioritised on
27 September 1995. The first draft risk assessment reports (RAR) were submitted by the Dutch authorities,
acting as Member State Rapporteur, to the Community Technical Meeting in December 1999. Over the
last decade, extensive discussions between the Dutch Institute ‘Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en
Milieu’
(RIVM) acting as Rapporteur and zinc industry have taken place, and the output has been
considered in the reports.

In comparison with other priority substances assessed under the Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93 on
the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances, the procedure for completing the risk
assessment for the six zinc compounds is not in anyway accelerated and there has never been the intention
to close the discussions without taking into account ongoing research that could affect the conclusions.

At the Technical Meeting in September 2001, after an extensive discussion on the new draft reports,
Member States experts agreed that especially on the issue of the emissions from zinc to soil and the
bioavailability of this released zinc in the soil, specific information needs could be identified that might
affect some of the conclusions regarding the risks of this substance. Therefore,
in line with the usual
procedure under this Regulation, the meeting agreed on a conclusion (i) there is a need for further
information and/or testing, and agreed on a deadline of 18 months from September 2001 to obtain this
information. After this deadline the Member State Rapporteur will incorporate the new results in the final
RAR. These results and the final part of the report will then be discussed and concluded upon by the
Technical Meeting.

(2002/C 93 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2092/01

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Conformity with the?Architecture Directive’ : recognition of specialised courses of study

Liechtenstein communicated details of the School of Architecture in Vaduz in accordance with Article 7 of
the ‘Architecture Directive’, 85/384/EEC (1). This notification was recognised by the ESA (EFTA Surveillance
Authority) for the purposes of the EEA by virtue of its publication in the Official Journal (2). On the EU
side, reservations were expressed by 5 Member States and the matter was referred to the EEA Conciliation
Committee, with a view to reaching a settlement within 6 months.

A decision has not yet been reached.

Since the majority of students at the above-mentioned university come from EU Member States, the
current legal uncertainty regarding the conformity of the training offered with the ‘Architecture Directive’
and the attendant problems concerning access to careers in the sector are making the situation untenable.

C 93 E/60

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

To what extent have the negotiations between the Member States and the Commission progressed and/or
when can an official decision regarding recognition of the course offered by the Vaduz university by all the
Member States of the EEA, including the EU Member States, be expected?

(1) OJ L 223, 21.8.1985, p. 15.
(2) OJ C 42 8.2.2001, p. 14.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The matter of diplomas for architects from the Fach-Hochschule Liechtenstein was discussed at the 81st
European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Committee meeting of 15 December 2000, and again at the next
meeting on 25 January 2001, where it was ‘stated, for the record, that the Community would not
recognise this diploma’. However the EEA European Free Trade Association (EFTA) side was of the opinion
that
this matter fell under the competence of the EFTA Surveillance
Authority (ESA)’.

‘according to the Agreement,

Subsequently, at the 83rd meeting of 23 February 2001 ‘The President stated that it was noted that the
EFTA Surveillance Authority had published a communication in the Official
Journal stating that the
diploma in question was to be recognised by all the Contracting Parties. That publication, however,
overlooked the fact that already in December 2000 the Commission had reserved its right not to recognise
the diploma and in January 2001 had notified the Joint Committee that that right was exercised. He
strongly objected to the publication that gave readers a misleading image of the situation’.

As things stand,
the architects diplomas from the Fach-Hochschule Liechtenstein are therefore not
recognised in the Community. One of the curricula leading to the diploma does not fulfil the requirements
under Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of
the right of establishment and freedom to provide services.

Negotiations are currently under way between the Parties in order to find a solution. Liechtenstein is
expected to come up with a proposal after the summer recess, which will be given swift and careful
attention by the Commission.

(2002/C 93 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2093/01

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Use of European structural funding (ERDF) of DM 500 million to build the motorway A 17 in

Saxony, Germany

The European Union is supporting the construction of the motorway A 17 (Dresden : Prague) with ERDF
funding amounting to DM 500 million (‘horizontal structural
fund programme to improve road
infrastructure in East Germany’). The construction of this road is endangering European conservation
areas defined in accordance with the wild birds directive (79/409/EEC) (1) and the habitats directive
(79/409/EEC) (2)..

Did the Commission agree to a reduction in the Fürstenau special protection area (EU registration
1.(a)
number 435) in 1998, although this could not be justified as far as conservation was concerned, but was
designed to make way for planning permission for the A 17?

How can the Commission justify approving this, although it meant splitting up the habitat for the

1.(b)
black grouse, the eagle owl and the black stork, and hence jeopardising the survival of these species?