WRITTEN QUESTION P-3499/02 by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission. Centre for disabled children of European officials.
Date: 2002-12-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, European official, European school, child, child care, disabled person, social policy, special education

C 161 E/96

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

In its conclusions, the Transport Council of 6 December 2002 supported most of the initiatives the
Commission put forward in the communication. Thus, as the Honourable Member advocates, a regulation
prohibiting the transport of heavy fuel oil by single hull tankers bound for or leaving Union ports and
speeding up the replacement of single hull ships by double hull ships was adopted by the Commission on
20 December 2002 (3) and is now being examined by the co-legislators.

In accordance with its communication of 3 December 2002, the Commission will invite the Council to
grant it without delay a negotiating mandate to ensure that candidate countries, as well as neighbouring
countries which are relevant for the heavy fuel oil trade in EU waters, will apply the same principles,
through administrative agreements to be concluded within existing cooperation frameworks, such as the
Paris Memorandum of Understanding on port State control and Euro-Med.

On the subject of port State control, the Commission communication reminds the Member States of their
inspection obligations. It asks them to recruit enough inspectors to check at least 25 % of ships, as required
by current European rules. It also requests them to achieve a sufficient level of inspection in all their ports
and anchorage areas to prevent them becoming ‘ports of convenience’.

The Commission intends to remain particularly vigilant regarding this point.
It has already made
submissions to the Court of Justice regarding France and Ireland, which are failing to meet the 25 %
threshold.

(1) Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community
ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship
safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control), OJ L 157, 7.7.1995.

(2) COM(2002) 681 final.
(3) COM(2002) 780 final.

(2003/C 161 E/100)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3499/02

by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Commission

(2 December 2002)

Subject: Centre for disabled children of European officials

The European Union provides early childhood centres for children of its officials based in Brussels, which
are funded entirely from the Community budget.

It also provides European schools for those of its officials’ children who are of school age. These schools,
the first of which was opened in 1957, are partly funded from the Community budget.

Lastly, it provides day-care facilities outside school hours and during school holidays, which are funded
entirely from the Community budget.

Given that for many years now the European institutions have provided day-care facilities for ‘normal’
children of pre-school and school age, both during and outside school hours, why have they not yet set up
a day- and night-care centre for disabled children of European officials, funded from the Community
budget (heading 5)?

If the administration is planning to open such a centre, when does it intend to do so? If it is not, what are
the reasons for this lack of interest in the ‘disabled’ children of European officials, and should this attitude
not be seen as discriminatory?

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/97

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2003)

The Commission would like to underline first that none of the childcare centres available to European
Union officials are financed entirely by the Community budget. Fees paid by parents provide a significant
part of funding. For one child enrolled full time, the parental contribution for the crèche may vary from
5 % to 9 % (1) of the total family income and from EUR 57,67 to EUR 158,60 per month (2) for the after-
school childcare facility. A fixed sum of EUR 43,30 per week per child has to be paid by parents for the
school holiday childcare facility.

All these facilities are located near the European Institutions premises or European schools, and opening
hours and holidays coincide with the working hours and holidays of the Europeans Institutions. The
European schools did not provide for any after-school childcare facility until recently.

Admission to the care and educational facilities is subject to certain conditions and not guaranteed. There
is a list of nine criteria for admission to crèches and, regrettably, long waiting lists because demand from
qualified parents exceeds supply of available places.

The European schools only provide the standard curriculum (leading to the European baccalaureate). As
the Honourable Member rightly states, since 1957 the Commission contributes to the budget of the
European schools (58,6 % in 2002) and is represented by having one place in the InterGovernmental Board
of Governors which manages the European schools. A total of 18 285 children are currently enrolled in
European schools in Brussels, Luxembourg and other locations. In 2001, 126 students qualified for special
educational support because they were recognised to have various forms of disability. A Community
budget of EUR 334 814 was allocated. In 2002, the Commission’s social services have held 2 meetings
with the European schools and parents’ representatives for the specific purpose of discussing the needs of
children with disabilities and their education in the European schools.

In the course of the current financial year, apart from statutory benefits such as double child allowance
and special provisions for reimbursement of medical expenses, between 65 and 75 individuals have been
in receipt of support from the interinstitutional budget heading ‘A-4103’ (3). This budget heading provides,
within the framework of the provisional guidelines (4), financial assistance for the costs of staying in an
establishment or reception centre for people with disabilities; costs of special schooling or training
regarded as necessary to alleviate the effects of the disability; costs of nursing care; travel and/or transport
costs and certain kinds of equipment. Only 21 beneficiaries claimed reimbursement of expenses for
residential costs (e.g. boarding schools for special educational needs) or costs for special institutions in
2001. The annual average amount spent from the Community budget for non-medical costs is around
EUR 700 000 (i.e. an average of ± EUR 10 000 per year per person). The support is not limited to a specific
age because in several cases the disability is, unfortunately, lifelong.

The groups of children catered for in the existing childcare facilities provided by the European institutions
basically have the same abilities and needs (for example, age difference in a group in the crèche normally
does not exceed a few months). The potential relevant group for a centre for children with disabilities
whose parents are Union officials would vary, however, in age from young children to adults, and the type
and gravity of the disability would also extend over a wide range from children, young people or adults
with learning disabilities to children, young people or adults needing nursing care.

Belgium and other host countries, as well as the countries of origin of officials, provide specific and
specialist facilities for people with disabilities (5), and those facilities are adapted to the specific needs of
children, young people and adults with regard to their disability, age and language. Recognising that does
not imply any unwillingness to ‘mainstream’ pupils with special educational needs wherever possible. It
does mean that, because the European Schools are not equipped to deal with the needs of many of the
individuals with those needs, provision for children, young people and adults with special needs in host
country or country of origin schools is superior.

Until the end of 2001, the Commission had never been approached with a request to open a centre for
disabled children of European officials, apparently because officials used facilities in the host country or in
their country of origin and, in addition, amongst the children of officials there were fewer who had special
needs (6).

C 161 E/98

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

In 2001, a group of parents of adults with disabilities submitted a project to the Commission proposing
the creation of a centre for adults with disabilities. The estimated budget for this project per year/person is
± EUR 96 000.
It is clear that if such a project was pursued the current budget line would require
significant adjustment. The Commission is currently undertaking a feasibility study on the creation of a
centre for children of European officials who have disabilities. The study and its results will be submitted
to Parliament.

The Commission is fully aware of the difficult situation of parents of disabled children and is consequently
undertaking specific research (including visits to centres, collecting pedagogical projects,
identifying
available places, etc.) in order to offer help to find the best suitable places in existing facilities.

(1) depending on number of children in family (1-4).
(2) depending on the family income; scale for 1 child enrolled full time.
(3) A-4103 = ‘Special aid for the disabled’ covering non-medical costs resulting from a disability.
(4) Adopted by the Collège des Chefs d’Administration in 1994 and modified in 1999.
(5) Day centres, night centres, for adults or for children, for mental handicaps, for physical handicaps, centres for

disabled who wish to work, specific schools, residential centres, etc.

(6) Thanks to medical progress, handicapped people enjoy a longer life-expectation now.

(2003/C 161 E/101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3511/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Court of Justice judgment concerning bilateral aviation agreements concluded by EU Member
States with other states and the implications for Member States which fail to comply with that
judgment

1.
Has the judgment handed down by the Court of Justice on 5 November 2002 concerning the
involvement of EU Member States in bilateral aviation with the United States given rise to a contradictory
state of affairs, in that, although the Court confirmed that competence to conclude agreements of this kind
no longer rests with individual Member States, but rather with the European Union as a whole, it also
stipulated that existing bilateral agreements should continue to apply, because not only the Member State
concerned, but also a third state, enjoys rights under such agreements?

2. Was the contradictory state of affairs referred to above the reason which prompted the Commission,
on 20 November 2002, to urge the Member States to take the opportunity voluntarily to terminate all
bilateral aviation agreements with the United States within one year, otherwise it would declare all existing
agreements null and void, either with immediate effect or
retrospectively? Alternatively, was the
Commission merely endeavouring to arrange a transitional period during which a fresh agreement
between the EU and the United States can be drawn up?

3. Why did the Commission wait before issuing a call to the Member States until the Court of Justice
handed down a judgment, even though it was already convinced that competence to conclude bilateral
aviation agreements with third countries should be transferred to it and even though it could be predicted
in advance that the Court judgment would not be completely binding?

4. What will happen if one or more Member States refuse to terminate their existing aviation
agreements with the United States?

5.
In connection with the aviation agreements, could a situation arise similar to that referred to in
Written Question E-1609/02 (1) on national tax cuts on oil products used by professional road hauliers,
whereby the Member States agree jointly to ignore the Commission’s calls, not to criticise other Member
States’ actions, not to impose penalties for breaches of rules they no longer regard as desirable and not to
open EU negotiations with the United States?

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 145.