WRITTEN QUESTION E-0793/02 by Peter Skinner (PSE), Torben Lund (PSE)and Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission. Compliance with Directive 89/48/EEC and discrimination against foreigners.
Date: 2002-03-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, application of EU law, free movement of workers, recognition of diplomas, restriction on competition, right of establishment

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/217

the European Communities in Luxembourg (1). Some Member States lacking national
Publication of
screening programmes up to now have embarked in setting up nation-wide breast cancer screening
programmes based on the European guidelines.

(1)

ISBN 92-894-1145-7.

(2002/C 205 E/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0793/02

by Peter Skinner (PSE), Torben Lund (PSE)
and Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2002)

Subject: Compliance with Directive 89/48/EEC and discrimination against foreigners

One of the preconditions of a well-functioning single market is non-discrimination against labour from
other Member States. Unfortunately, many Member States still seem to fail to comply with Directive
89/48/EEC (1). This problem is well
illustrated by a case from Great Britain in which the British
Psychological Society (BPS)
is refusing to recognise a Danish psychologist’s (Cand. Psych) university
diploma. Therefore, the person in question is unable to obtain membership of the BPS and consequently is
excluded from practising in Great Britain.

We believe it to be a general cause for concern that when assessing foreign diplomas, both private and
public institutions often do not grant the diplomas their rightful legal value. This means that EU citizens
cannot practise their occupation on equal terms.

In the above-mentioned case 9 which resembles other cases of market discrimination 9 the BPS is
ensuring for its own members an unfair preferential market position by being able to control access by
psychologists from other EU Member States. In addition, the BPS handles cases so slowly that most
applicants are likely to give up pursuing their rights.

In this case, the person in question has a legal adviser and Eurojus to support her case. Both state that the
BPS is not complying with Directive 89/48/EEC.

Therefore, we ask the Commission to state how it intends to ensure that Member States comply with
Directive 89/48/EEC and also to state whether it knows of this case or about other similar cases. Finally,
we would like the Commission to specify which measures it intends to take in order to ensure that
psychologists and other professionals educated in one EU Member State will be able to practise in another.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2002)

With regard to the general question asked by the Honourable Members on the application of Council
Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education
diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration,
the Commission would like to point out that, since the end of the period for transposing this Directive
(4 January 1991), it has known of only a few cases of persistent violation of this Directive by the Member
States. In addition, once the Commission has identified national regulations or administrative practices
which are contrary to Directive 89/48/EEC, it systematically starts infringement proceedings which may, if
needs be,
Justice as the body responsible for examining such
infringements. These procedures are carried out as quickly as possible, in view of the need to confirm the
facts of the matter and obtain the relevant information.

lead to a referral

to the Court of

C 205 E/218

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

With regard more specifically to the application of Directive 89/48/EEC by the British Psychological
Society (BPS), which is the authority in charge of the professional recognition of psychologists in the
United Kingdom, the Commission does not know of the individual case mentioned by the Honourable
Members. The Commission would therefore ask the Members to suggest to the party concerned that he/she
provide it with more detailed information on the case in question. If, having examined this information,
it would take
the Commission should establish that
appropriate action including, if necessary, the opening of infringement proceedings against the Member
State concerned.

the Directive in question has been infringed,

The Commission would point out that in the initial years following the application of Directive 89/48/EEC
it knew of several cases in which psychologists with qualifications from other Member States encountered
problems in being recognised by the BPS, but that it has not heard of any new cases since then.

(2002/C 205 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0798/02

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 March 2002)

Subject: Export of manure

Up until December 2000 Germany did not allow Dutch livestock farmers who had a piece of land that
crossed the border with Germany to spread manure from their own farm on the land in German territory.
However, in December 2000 there was a supplementary European decision under which Member States
had to permit this. In 2001 the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries reached
an agreement on this matter with the German Länder of Lower Saxony and North Rhine Westphalia.
Lower Saxony is currently implementing the decision and Dutch livestock farmers are in fact able to
spread manure from their own farms on their land in German territory. North Rhine Westphalia, however,
has still not implemented the decision.

Does the European Commission consider that North Rhine Westphalia has failed to implement the

1.
above decision?

2.

If so, what action can the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2002)

Pursuant to Annex I, Chapter 14, Part I A, point 1 a) of Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December
1992 laying down animal health and public health requirements governing trade in and imports into the
Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules
referred to in Annex A, Chapter I, to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive
90/425/EEC (1), as amended by Commission Decision 2001/7/EC of 19 December 2000 (2), trade in
unprocessed manure of species other than poultry or equidae is prohibited, except for manure coming
from an area or holding which is not subject to restrictions by virtue of a serious transmissible disease, and
intended for spreading under the control of the competent authorities on land forming part of or
belonging to the same holding, whether separated or not, located on both sides of the frontier between
Member States and within a distance of approximately 20 kilometres.

In this case, records must be kept by the owner of the holding concerning these cross-frontier movements
in order to be approved. The competent authority must keep a register of such approved holdings.

The Commission was aware of certain problems arising during the introduction into Lower Saxony of
manure from Dutch holdings bordering on Lower Saxony. According to the Commission’s information,
these problems, as the Honourable Member confirms, no longer exist. However, the Commission is not
aware of any refusal by the authorities of North Rhine Westphalia to apply the above-mentioned
conditions.