WRITTEN QUESTION E-2818/01 by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Student loans for British students resident abroad.
Date: 2001-10-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, United Kingdom, competence of the Member States, equal treatment, loan, national, residence, student

C 115 E/166

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Can the Commission say clearly and unequivocally:

1. what institution is competent to recover the bodies;

2. whether the recovery is still a matter of choice;

3. whether it considers it compatible with the declared principles of solidarity and religious feeling that
the bodies of hundreds of people should be left to be eaten by fishes just because they are not
European and are not entitled to a burial?

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 181.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2001)

The Commission certainly shares the Honourable Member’s sentiments on the need to respect human
dignity, particularly as regards victims of the tragic events to which he refers. It regrets that he considers
the reply to his previous question to be unsatisfactory, but can only reiterate that it is up to the Italian
authorities alone to recover the bodies. No Community instrument, either legal or financial, can be applied
in this case.

(2002/C 115 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2818/01

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Student loans for British students resident abroad

(10 October 2001)

It has recently been brought to our attention that British citizens resident abroad who go to study at
higher education institutions in Britain are currently not eligible for the Student Loan scheme available to
British citizens resident in Britain. This can have the effect of denying access to British educational
institutions for these potential students due to financial problems. It seems an anomaly that loans are not
available to British students who happen not to have been resident in Britain for some years, and appears
to constitute unnecessary discrimination against these students.

We would like to know:

8 Is the Commission satisfied that this constitutes equality of treatment for people in such a position?

8 What steps is the Commission taking to ensure equality of treatment for such people?

8 Does the Commission find any evidence of discrimination against citizens of other EU countries

regarding access to British higher educational institutions and funding?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

According to Article 149 (ex Article 126) of the EC Treaty, each Member State is responsible for the
content and the organisation of its educational system. However, as far as conditions of access to
education are concerned, the Member States are obliged to respect the principle of ‘equality of treatment’.

According to the jurisprudence of the Court, at the present stage of development of Community law, the
principle of equality applies ‘to assistance given by a Member State to its nationals for the purposes of
university studies, only in so far as assistance is intended to cover registration or other fees, in particular
tuition fees charged for access to education’.

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/167

The case raised by the Honourable Member concerns British citizens resident abroad who go to study in
higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. The condition of access to student loans is an
internal matter not covered by Community law.

The alleged British student loan system covers living costs 8 accommodation, food, clothes, travel etc. and
falls there with outside Community rules.

To the extent that the British system provides assistance to cover tuition fees (which falls within the scope
of the EC Treaty, as mentioned before), the conditions that are imposed conform with Community law: the
student must be a national of an Member State or a child of such a national and he must have lived in the
European Economic Area (EEA: Member States and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) throughout the three
years before the start of the first academic year of the course for which he is seeking help with fees.

(2002/C 115 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2823/01

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 October 2001)

Subject: Transgenic salmon

On 18 July this year the European Patent Office for the first time registered a patent for a transgenic
animal for human consumption 8 a genetically modified species of salmon originating in Canada.

How can this move be compatible with the ban on the patenting of animal species contained in the
European Patent Convention?

What steps will be taken to protect natural species of salmon from any contact with transgenic salmon and
prevent the latter from escaping into open water?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

The Honourable Member has drawn the Commission’s attention to the fact that the European Patent Office
has issued a patent for a transgenic fish obtained by incorporating a chimeric gene of non-human origin.

It should be noted that the European Patent Organisation, whose Office issues European patents which are
international organisation over which the
intended to become national patents,
Community has no direct control.

is an independent

Directive 98/44/EC authorises the issue of patents on animals provided that the technical implementation
of the invention is not confined to a particular animal variety. A patent can therefore be issued only if the
claimed invention can be applied to all types of existing fish.

From this point of view, the patent in question seems to comply with the relevant provisions of patent law
and, in particular, with the law concerning biotechnological inventions.

The Commission intends to closely monitor developments in the field of biotechnology and will not fail to
report on these to the Parliament, especially in the annual report stipulated by Directive 98/44/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological
inventions (1).

It has to be underlined that the granting of a patent does not by any means authorise its use for deliberate
release of fish. The question of deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified salmon has
been raised previously and the Honourable Member is referred to the answers it gave to Written Questions
E-2223/00 by Mrs Patrie (2), E-1627/00 by Mr Maat (3) and E-1489/00 by Mr Meijer (4).