WRITTEN QUESTION E-2435/02 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Varying age limits for appointment to and exercise of the profession of notary in the EU.
Date: 2002-08-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, access to a profession, age discrimination, application of EU law, appointment of staff, equal treatment, notary

C 28 E/238

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

The Commission is fully aware of the potential conflict between public health objectives and commercial
interests of
the
industry. But as a consequence of
Commission usually is not informed about particular advertising campaigns in the Member States. This is
also true for the campaign by Novartis for Lamisil®.

the shared responsibilities,

the pharmaceutical

(1) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.

(2003/C 28 E/268)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2431/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 August 2002)

Subject: Injection of growth hormone into dairy cattle

With the current EU moratorium due to expire on 16 December 2002, what steps is the Commission
taking in order to ensure the continued ban on the injection of growth hormone into dairy cattle to
promote bigger milk yields?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2002)

It is assumed that the question of the Honourable Member refers to the prohibition of use of bovine
somatotrophin (BST) established by Council Decision 1999/879/EC of 17 December 1999 concerning the
placing on the market and administration of bovine somatotrophin (BST) and repealing Decision 90/218/
EEC (1). The prohibition of use in this Decision has no time limit.

(1) OJ L 331, 23.12.1999.

(2003/C 28 E/269)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2435/02

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 August 2002)

Subject: Varying age limits for appointment to and exercise of the profession of notary in the EU

1.
In view of the principle of equal rights, how does the Commission view the fact that varying national
provisions are in force in the EU Member States with regard to age limits for appointment to and exercise
of the profession of notary?

2.
Is it aware that, in the Netherlands and in Belgium, for example, there are no age limits for notaries,
while an age limit of 70 is to be introduced in Germany? What rules are in force in other EU Member
States?

Has consideration been given to how this unequal treatment should be combated in the internal

3.
market, or have decisions already been taken on the subject?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2002)

The question seems to imply that the existence in the Member States of various rules regarding access to
the profession of notary might constitute a breach of the principle of equal treatment. It derives from
consistent case-law (1) that the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Article 12 of the EC Treaty is not
concerned with disparities in treatment or the distortions which may result from divergences existing
between the laws of the various Member States, so long as the latter affect all persons subject to them, in

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/239

accordance with objective criteria and without regard to their nationality. The fact that, according to the
Honourable Member, different rules exist in Belgium and Germany as regards access to and the exercise of
the profession is therefore not in breach of the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Article 12 of the
EC Treaty.

There is currently no Community legislation which deals specifically with access to the profession of
notary. 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 (2) applies in principle to notaries, but it contains no provisions on the application of age
limits.

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment
in employment and occupation (3) prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief, disability,
age and sexual orientation. It provides for the possibility of certain differences of treatment on grounds of
age which are objectively and reasonably justified and which are thus not incompatible with Community
law. Moreover, a recital of the Directive states that the latter is without prejudice to national provisions
laying down retirement ages. The Member States must transpose this Directive into national
law by
2 December 2003. However, to take account of particular conditions, Member States may, if necessary,
have an additional period of three years from 2 December 2003 to implement the provisions of the
Directive on age and disability discrimination.

The Commission has no information on any national age limits for notaries which may exist in the
Member States.

(1) Case 1/78, Kenny, [1978] ECR 1489.
(2) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.
(3) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

(2003/C 28 E/270)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2439/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 August 2002)

Subject: Agreement between Microsoft and the American FTC on the non-use of data collected and the

forthcoming EU evaluation

In view of the persistent criticism of the fact that it remains possible to store far more data
1.
concerning users of Microsoft ‘.NET Passport’ than Microsoft was for a long time prepared to admit, is the
Commission aware that at the beginning of August an agreement was reached between Microsoft and the
American Federal Trade Commission whereby the company agrees not to use the data it has gathered and
undertakes to make it possible for a third party to check the system within one year?

2.
Does the Commission agree with American consumers’ organisations and competitors of Microsoft
that, although these agreements are an important step in the right direction, they do not afford any
watertight guarantees that it will no longer be possible to use the data collected, particularly bearing in
mind that previously Microsoft denied the existence of a number of the possibilities which have since
come to light and that even now it continues to point to the alleged benefit to consumers from the fact
that their data are stored for 90 days without their consent?

Does the Commission recall that,

(Windows XP) and
3.
E-3430/01 (2) (Smart Tags), it stated that it had never received any complaints? How can this be reconciled
with the fact that, according to my own observations, both groups and individuals are complaining? Who
has the power to complain, what conditions must be met in order for the Commission to consider
complaints, and how long does it take before the results are known?

in the answers to questions E-3111/01 (1)