WRITTEN QUESTION E-0481/02 by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE), Nicole Fontaine (PPE-DE),Catherine Guy-Quint (PSE), Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL), Catherine Lalumière (PSE),Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) and Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Participation of east European republics in Community education programmes.
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belarus, Central and Eastern Europe, EU programme, Moldova, Ukraine, education, enlargement of the Union, young person

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/53

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

According to Article 300(7) of the EC Treaty, agreements with third countries concluded by the Council,
pursuant to the provisions of the EC Treaty, are binding for the Community institutions and the Member
States. Agreements with third countries may be invoked by individual operators if the agreements are
considered to be directly effective. An agreement might be considered to be directly effective if the
provisions lay down a sufficiently clear and precise obligation which does not require the adoption of any
subsequent measure for its implementation (see eg. Case 12/86 Demirel and, with respect to the World
Trade Organisation Agreement, Case C-149/96 Portugal v Council).

The question of whether these agreements are directly effective, and can therefore be relied upon by
is for the Community Courts to determine. To the best of the Commission’s knowledge,
individuals,
neither the European Court of Justice nor the Court of First Instance have been asked to determine
whether the provisions of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) and the Interim Agreement
between the Community and the Russian Federation are directly effective.

(2002/C 277 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0481/02

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE), Nicole Fontaine (PPE-DE),
Catherine Guy-Quint (PSE), Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL), Catherine Lalumière (PSE),
Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) and Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Participation of east European republics in Community education programmes

The Community education and training programmes such as Socrates, Jeunesse and Leonardo da Vinci are
attracting increasing participation from young people in the EU, on whom they exert a strong motivating
effect. These programmes encourage cultural exchanges and the creation of a common educational area,
thus laying the foundations for the development of a common European consciousness and identity and,
by the same token, of mutual understanding and shared practices.

In the context of EU enlargement, these three Community programmes have been extended to the
applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the EFTA/EEA associated countries and Turkey.

This planned expansion, which is already under way, will draw a new eastern frontier of the Union,
bordering directly on the republics of Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. These republics are not yet official
applicant countries, but are indisputably part of the European area and identity, while the leaders and
governments of all three have stressed their desire for closer links with the EU.

The prospect of the forthcoming EU enlargement, coupled with the development of closer links with the
neighbouring countries, must surely, both inevitably and for strategic reasons, imply the expansion of the
above-mentioned programmes, including all of their various components (Socrates, Jeunesse, Leonardo da
Vinci and others such as Culture 2000 or the Jean Monnet chairs), to bring in the citizens of Ukraine,
Belarus and Moldova, who are as things stand able to benefit only from the rather more limited Tempus
programme.

Does the Council not consider that such an extension of this European educational area would reinforce
the dynamic of the European integration and harmonisation process, while also helping raise awareness in
these three east European republics among the younger generation who will form their future civil society
and ruling class?

Is the Council willing to earmark, under each of these programmes, a specific budget for each of these
republics, designed so as to take account of and compensate for the economic gap between their
populations and those of the EU Member States and associated countries, given especially that this
additional cost would be purely marginal for programmes which are already open to over thirty countries?

C 277 E/54

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

Reply

(22 July 2002)

The Council agrees with the Honourable Members that a European educational area is emerging, both
through, on the one hand, Community programmes and processes and, on the other hand, broader
developments such as the Bologna/Prague process. As the Honourable Members will know, the three
countries mentioned in the question @ Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova @ already participate in the Tempus
Programme, which aims at assisting the reform process in higher education and enhancing balanced
cooperation with the Member States. The other Community programmes mentioned (Socrates, Youth and
Leonardo) were extended to the candidate countries as a consequence of their status of applicants.

The Council, during its meeting of 15 April 2002, had an exchange of views on relations between the
future enlarged EU and its Eastern neighbours. It welcomed the intention of the Commission and of the
High Representative Javier Solana to prepare contributions during the second half of 2002 on the
possibilities for strengthening these relations, taking into account the different state of relations between
the EU and the countries involved, as well as their level of political and economic development.

The Council reminds the Honourable Members that, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 49 TEU, any
for human rights and
European State which respects the principles of
fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, may apply to become a Member of the Union. It shall address
its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after
receiving the assent of the European Parliament. At present there are no plans to extend candidate status to
any other European countries.

liberty, democracy, respect

(2002/C 277 E/056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0494/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: The euro and the accession of Cyprus

In view of the impending accession of Cyprus to the European Union, what representations has the
Commission made, or intend to make, regarding the fact that the island does not feature on the map of
Europe depicted on euro notes and coins?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

The design on the common side of the euro coins features a representation of Europe, as opposed to a
map of Europe. No intention therefore exists to modify the design of the common side of the euro coins
following the enlargement of the Union.

The original decisions on the design of the euro banknotes have been taken by the European Monetary
Institute. This matter is under the competence of the European Central Bank.

(2002/C 277 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0497/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Council

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Recovery plan for hake

The plan proposed by the Commission for rebuilding stocks of cod and hake in Community waters is
being strongly contested by the industry, the Member States affected and Parliament itself, particularly with
regard to hake. The reason is the discrepancy between the conclusions of the various scientific reports and
the drastic measures being proposed by the Commission.