WRITTEN QUESTION E-3868/02 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) and Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Netherlands Student Grants Act.
Date: 2003-01-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, education grant, free movement of persons, higher education, recognition of diplomas, student mobility, vocational education

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/157

Since the protection of intellectual property has been recognised by the Court of Justice as a general-
interest objective (1),
it is possible that this may justify obstacles to the cross-border broadcasting of
television programmes which could be recognised as compatible with the principles in Articles 43 and 49
of the EC Treaty if they comply with the principle of proportionality.

With regard to satellite broadcasting, the Commission has been able to establish, as explained in its report
of 26 July 2002 (2), that whilst there has been a proliferation of television channels, these are more and
more often encrypted and are not accessible to viewers who do not live in the Member State in which the
transmission is organised. This restriction on access to these channels is, in particular, related to conditions
governing the transfer of intellectual property rights for television programmes.

This situation is of some concern to the Commission because there are genuine benefits to be gained from
broadcasting programmes across national borders, both for citizens residing in their Member State of
origin (cultural and linguistic exchanges) and for those resident in a Member State other than their own
(who can remain in touch with their culture of origin).

As indicated in its report, the Commission has started to hold in-depth discussions on the conditions
governing the transfer of intellectual property rights for television programmes broadcast by satellite. It
has, more specifically, set up a working group to bring together various representatives of the different
parties involved in satellite broadcasting (including some of the competent authorities at national and
European level),
in order to find a solution which might reconcile the interests of rightholders and
broadcasters.

Since work on this complex issue has still to be completed and is scheduled to continue in 2003, the
Commission cannot, at this stage, comment on whether the encryption of programmes broadcast by either
public or private bodies can be justified in accordance with the principles of the internal market.

(1) See judgment of 25 July 1991, Case 288/89, Mediawet.
(2) Report on the application of Council Directive 93/83/EEC on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright
and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission, COM(2002) 430 final.

(2003/C 161 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3868/02

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

Subject: Netherlands Student Grants Act

(10 January 2003)

In the Netherlands, grants are awarded to students aged over 18. That applies to all forms of education.
Child benefit is not paid in respect of students aged over 18.

If the students concerned pursue their studies in Belgium or Germany, student grants are awarded in
respect of higher education and university courses but not in respect of secondary, basic or intermediate
vocational training courses.

The Netherlands authorities recognise periods of study in Belgium and Germany in connection with the
Compulsory Education Act, and degrees taken in Germany and Belgium are recognised as full degrees.

1.
Does the Commission feel that the Netherlands’ decision not to award grants to students over the age
of 18 following secondary (vocational) training courses in Belgium and Germany is in breach of the
principle of ‘free movement of services’ (following a recognised training course abroad) and/or the ‘free
movement of persons’?

Does the Commission feel that the Netherlands’ decision not to award grants to students over the age
2.
of 18 following secondary (vocational)
training courses in Belgium and Germany is in breach of
Articles 149 and/or 150 of the EC Treaty in that the action of the Netherlands Government restricts
student mobility?

C 161 E/158

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

In general, each Member State is responsible for organising and financing its own education system.

Concerning Article 149 and Article 150: The Dutch authorities respond to the objective of encouraging
mobility, described in Article 149 of the EC Treaty, by fully accepting and recognising periods of study in
Belgium and Germany.

Concerning the free movement of services: Although the question mentions Article 49 EC, that provision is
not at stake if, as it seems, it refers to training courses organised by public schools and/or universities. The
Court ruled that such courses do not constitute services within the meaning of Article 49 EC.

Concerning the free movement of persons: The Commission will further examine this question in the light
of the legislation and practice in the Netherlands and will, in due course, provide a supplementary reply to
the Honourable Member.

(2003/C 161 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3873/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Petition to the European Parliament on silting at the Óbidos Lagoon (No 978/01)

The Residents’ Association of Bom Sucesso-Vau, Óbidos (Portugal), which campaigns to protect the
ecosystem of the Óbidos Lagoon, the rich natural heritage of the region and the quality of life of the
inhabitants, has addressed a petition to the European Parliament in which it complains of pollution and
silting at the lagoon and the placing of a wall of plastic bags containing sand in the area of the lagoon,
allegedly to protect the dunes. Parliament’s Committee on Petitions has asked the Commission to take a
position on the matter.

Can the Commission state its position on the petition of the Residents’ Association of Bom Sucesso-Vau on
the Óbidos Lagoon?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has responded on two occasions to
petition No 978/01 presented by the Residents’ Association of Bom Sucesso on the subject of pollution at
the Óbidos Lagoon.

In its initial response, the Commission indicated that, having analysed the petition,
it had found it
necessary to obtain explanations from the Portuguese authorities regarding the discharge of waste water
into the lagoon in the light of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste
water treatment (1).

In addition, the Commission also stated that, even if the lagoon were inside an area protected under
national legislation, this did not mean that the area in question benefited from special protection in the
Community context.

As the Commission clarified in its reply, the Óbidos Lagoon was neither a Special Protection Area (SPA) as
designated in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
birds (2), nor a Site of Community Importance (SCI) proposed under Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/
43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3).