WRITTEN QUESTION E-1337/02 by Carlos Lage (PSE) to the Commission. Management of the European Schools.
Date: 2002-05-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Brussels region, European school, fundamental rights, management

C 52 E/60

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

The Protocol was signed with Poland on 14 June 2002, and on 18 June 2002 the Parties notified each
other of the completion of their respective internal procedures. Consequently, pursuant to Article 6 of the
Protocol, the date of entry into force is 1 July 2002.

(2003/C 52 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1337/02

by Carlos Lage (PSE) to the Commission

(13 May 2002)

Subject: Management of the European Schools

The European Schools were set up with the aim of providing the children of European officials living
abroad with an education compatible with the school curriculum in their own countries.

Precisely because they are living away from their roots, it is important that officials should be able to
ensure their children normal schooling, with continuity in teaching and psychological and emotional
security.

Recently about 300 families the children of whom attend one of the three schools in Brussels were faced
with a decision taken by the Board of Governors of the European Schools, according to which their
children will change school as of September 2002.

This decision was taken quite arbitrarily, without any respect for the choice made by the parents on the
basis of the educational interests of their children and their own professional obligations.

In view of this, can the Commission say:

1.

2.

to what extent the European Schools, in particular those in Brussels, satisfy the needs of the officials
and other servants of the EU institutions;

to what extent respect for the principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union, in particular Articles 24(2) and 41, is ensured;

3. how the European Schools are managed?

(cid:1) how they are funded and what percentage is paid by each participant?

(cid:1) what role is played by the European Commission in the Board of Governors? How many votes

the Commission has on the Board?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2002)

In order to obtain general background to the issue which is of interest to him the Honourable Member
should refer to the information given by the Commission in its answer to written question E-0980/02
from Mr Stavros Xarchakos (1).

On 1 and 3, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-0944/02
from Ms Ilda Figueiredo (2).

On question 2, the European Schools are not bodies of the Union in the sense of Article 51 of the Charter
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The legal basis for the European Schools is the 1957
intergovernmental Statute of the European School. The fundamental rights mentioned by the Honourable
Member are, consequently, ensured by provisions of national law and international agreements such as the
1989 New York Convention on the Rights of the Child. As the Commission indicated in its answer to
written question E-0944/02 from Ms Ilda Figueiredo, the Board of Governors of the European Schools
took steps to ensure that any transfer of pupils between schools in Brussels respected the fundamental
rights mentioned by the Honourable Member.

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/61

The Commission has a representative Member on the Board of Governors and, consequently, one vote.
The Board is an intergovernmental body that is otherwise made up of representatives of each of the
Member States who usually come from the Education ministries of those countries.

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 119.
(2) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 112.

(2003/C 52 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1358/02

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Legislation on money laundering in the applicant countries

1. Which of the applicant countries have legislation on money laundering which takes into account
Council Directive 91/308/EEC (1) of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the
purpose of money laundering?

2.

In which countries are improvements necessary?

3. Where exactly are the improvements necessary?

4.

By what date must the improvements be completed?

(1) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991, p. 77.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2002)

The Commission is closely monitoring the implementation and enforcement of the first anti-money
laundering Directive (Council Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the
financial system for the purpose of money laundering) and the plans for implementation of the recently
adopted second anti-money laundering Directive (Directive 2001/97/EC of the Parliament and of the
Council of 4 December 2001 amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC (1)). To this end, from September
2001 to February 2002, the Commission organised a number of meetings with all applicant countries.
Further meetings are planned with certain countries to follow up the implementation of the commitments.

All applicant countries have now passed legislation which fully, or in a limited number of cases, almost
fully implements the first Directive. A number of the applicant countries have also passed or will soon
pass legislation to introduce the provisions of the second money-laundering Directive in their national
legal order. It should be noted that the Member States have until mid-2003 to transpose the second
Directive.

Although implementation is completed certain problems in the enforcement of the legislation still remain.
The Commission is working closely with the applicant countries and several projects supported by the pre-
accession funds have been or will be carried out to remedy these deficiencies before accession.

Improvements are necessary in almost all applicant countries to effectively combat money laundering. So
far, only Slovenia has reached a level which is fully satisfactory. Main efforts are needed in Poland,
Lithuania and Bulgaria. Most countries must further strengthen their financial intelligence units which co-
ordinate the efforts to combat money laundering and have to invest in more specialised training, including
for judges and prosecutors. In certain cases it is a question of increasing the number of staff, in others the
frequency and quality of the reporting from credit institutions.

There have also been substantial discussions on the issue of anonymous or bearer savings passbooks,
which in the view of the Commission are incompatible with the first money laundering Directive.
These passbooks, which existed in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta and Slovakia, have now been
abolished or are in the process of being abolished in all these countries. Hungary, which currently is