WRITTEN QUESTION E-0693/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Refusal of Dikatsa in Greece to recognise a European degree.
Date: 2003-03-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, competence of the Member States, environmental protection, exchange of information, infringement of EU law, job access, recognition of diplomas, university, vocational training

C 192 E/214

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

The situation described in the fourth question is not correct according to the information that is
4.
available to the Commission. The harmonised legislation for the authorisation and registration of
homeopathic medicinal products as set out in Directive 2001/83/EC is applied in all Member States
including Germany. However, as explained in the answer to the first question, this legislation is obligatory
only for authorisations/registrations after 31 December 1993. For authorisations or registrations that were
existing at that date, the European legislation does not contain obligatory provisions. It is up to the
Member States therefore to decide what rules to apply to such authorisations or registrations. The
Commission does not have the competence to impose any binding rules in this area.

As a result of Article 6 of Directive 2001/83/EC, there is no entirely free circulation of nationally
5.
approved medicines as a separate approval
is needed for each Member State where the product is
marketed. However, it is one of the key objectives of that Directive to facilitate the free movement of the
medicinal products concerned,
recognition of marketing
authorisations. For authorisations or
registrations granted before 31 December 1993, Article 13
paragraph 1 of Directive 2001/83/EC obliges the Member States to take due account of such approvals,
when an authorisation or registration for the same product is sought in another Member State. This system
promotes the Single Market while taking account of existing divergences between the Member States.

in particular by providing for a mutual

As the answers given to the other questions indicate, the Commission is not entitled to stipulate how
6.
the Member States should deal with the authorisations or registrations for homeopathic medicinal products
existing on the 31 December 1993. For authorisations and registrations granted after that date, the
European legislation provides for largely harmonised rules. No specific problems with the application of
these rules have been brought to the attention of the Commission. It is not foreseen, therefore, to take any
particular measure in this area.

(1) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.
(2) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993.

(2003/C 192 E/256)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0693/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Refusal of Dikatsa in Greece to recognise a European degree

(7 March 2003)

Since 1991 the European Union has been funding the European Association of Environmental
Management Education involving universities of international repute, such as the National and Capodis-
trian University of Athens, the Université Libre de Bruxelles, the Ecole polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne,
Geneva University, Trier University and Erasmus University.

The Union provides financial support for the Masters degree in Environmental Management which is
recognised in all EU Member States, apart from Greece. Following an appeal by an interested party to the
Greek Council of State, the Supreme Court has invalidated the decision by Dikatsa (the Greek body
responsible for recognising degrees) not to recognise the above post-graduate degrees.

Despite this, both the Greek Ministry of Education and the Dikatsa, acting on its behalf, refuse to recognise
these degrees on various pretexts.

Is the Commission aware of this curious state of affairs? What action does it intend to take to solve this
specific problem?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

The information provided for by the Honourable Member is not sufficiently detailed for the Commission
to establish whether the non-recognition of the master degree in question amounts to an infringement of
Community law.

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/215

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 (1) has set up a ‘General System’ for the recognition of professional qualifications, designed to
ensure access to regulated professions in the different Member States. The Directive allows European
nationals who are fully qualified for the exercise of a given profession in their Member State of origin to
have access to the same profession in another Member State. The Directive applies only when the migrant
wishes to pursue in another Member State a regulated profession, that is a profession subject by legal,
regulatory or administrative provision to possession of a specific qualification. The migrant must hold a
diploma corresponding to the definition given in Article 1.a) of the Directive, that is a diploma or set of
diplomas which shows that the holder has the professional qualifications required for the taking up or the
pursuit of a regulated profession in the Member State in which the diploma has been obtained.

In the light of these principles, the refusal to recognise the master degree in question might infringe
Directive 89/48/EEC only if recognition is sought with a view to have access to a regulated profession in
Greece and the master degree entitles the holder to practise a specific profession in his/her Member State
of origin.

The non-recognition of the postgraduate academic title in question may also raise a problem under
Article 39 of the EC Treaty, if in the context of access to public service the title is not taken into account
by the Greek authorities in the same way as Greek qualifications of the same level.

At the present stage of development of Community law, the recognition of diplomas for academic
purposes (i.e. which aims to allow people to pursue their studies in another Member State) falls within the
competence of Member States. There are no Community rules imposing mutual recognition of diplomas.
Each Member State is responsible for its own educational system and for the content and organisation of
its educational system. There are currently no diplomas that are recognised at European level. Universities
that are autonomous institutions are entirely responsible for the content of their curricula and for
awarding diplomas and certificates to students. The authorities of the Member States have the right to
require the academic recognition of qualifications before allowing access to education and they can
evaluate whether the content of the education received by the holder of a diploma corresponds to the level
that is required by the national legislation. They are equally free to fix the rules governing this type of
procedure. They are obliged, however, not to apply any direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of
nationality, in accordance with Article 12 of the EC Treaty.

On the basis of the available information it is not possible to establish if such discrimination has taken
place.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(2003/C 192 E/257)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0711/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 March 2003)

Subject: Enlargement of Milan-Malpensa airport

Does the Commission not consider the procedures for the award of contracts in connection with the
enlargement of Milan-Malpensa airport to be in contravention of current EU law (in particular the rules
relating to public contracts)? Do the enlargement plans not go way beyond what was originally approved
and do they not constitute a clear departure from the original proposal? Should an environmental impact
assessment (EIA) not be carried out before construction work gets under way?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

The Commission is unable, on the basis of the information submitted by the Honourable Member in his
written question and in the numerous documents annexed to it, to ascertain whether any infringements of