WRITTEN QUESTION P-1449/03 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission. Charging of fees to children of MEPs' assistants attending the European Schools.
Date: 2003-04-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European school, Member of the European Parliament, school fees, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)

C 280 E/146

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

The European Union should therefore adopt a Charter of Health Rights and a European Health System,
with due respect for the autonomy of each Member State. The Charter has already been promoted
throughout
the European Union by various citizens’ groups, as well as political and trade union
organisations. The Charter would be based on the principles of universality of health care and equal quality
of services in all Member States, guaranteeing equal and free access to such services for all citizens through
public funding.

Is the Commission prepared to promote the adoption of such a Charter of EU Citizens’ Health Rights? Is it
also prepared to promote a European health system?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Article 152(5) of the EC Treaty clearly states that Community action in the field of public health shall fully
respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the organisation and delivery of health services and
medical care. Issues such as the average number of hospital beds per 1000 inhabitants, are therefore the
responsibility of the Member States, not of the Community. In light of this, the Commission does not have
the competence to come forward with proposals for a Charter of Union Citizens’ Health Rights and for a
European Health System.

Although we are not about to see the emergence of a Europe-wide health system, the coming years will
see growing co-operation between Member States on healthcare issues. Issues in relation to this are
currently under discussion by Health Ministers and other stakeholders in the high level reflection process
on patient mobility and healthcare developments in the Union.

(2003/C 280 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1449/03

by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission

(16 April 2003)

Subject: Charging of fees to children of MEPs’ assistants attending the European Schools

At a meeting held in Copenhagen on 28/29 April 1998, the Board of Governors of the European Schools
decided, despite not having the support of the Commission, to classify the children of MEPs’ assistants in
Category III, thus obliging their parents to pay the full fees (for 2003-2004, EUR 1 886 for the pre-school
level, EUR 2 622 for the primary level and EUR 3 578 for the secondary level).

The children of MEPs’ assistants had previously been classified in Category I and were therefore exempted
from the fees.

Despite the fact that this decision was taken by the Board of Governors of the European Schools, can the
Commission, given that it has a representative on the Board, explain the latter’s reasons for changing the
long-established practice of classifying the children of MEPs’ assistants in Category I?

As the Commission is aware, MEPs’ assistants have their salaries paid directly from the EU budget: Section
I (Parliament), Chapter 39 (‘Expenditure relating to parliamentary assistants’),
item 3 910 contains the
appropriations for expenditure arising from the appointment and use of the services of one or more
assistant(s). In addition, under Article 14 of the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances
to Members, an assistant’s contract of employment is agreed between either the MEP and the assistant or a
paying agent and the assistant.

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/147

Given that Category I includes children of other employees who have no public or private contractual
relationship with the European institutions, whose salaries are not paid from the EU budget and who,
unlike MEPs’ accredited assistants, do not work regularly on the premises of one of the institutions, does
the Commission not consider that, in view of the above, there are more than sufficient objective reasons
for classifying MEPs’ assistants’ children in Category I?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2003)

The question of the appropriate category for children of MEPs’ assistants’ was raised by Brussels European
School I when the children of two assistants were enrolled for the 1997-1998 school year. The headteacher
of the School was unsure of whether the admission of MEP’s assistants’ children in category I was well-
founded.

The question was put to the Board of Governors at the meeting on 28/29 April 1998. As the Hon.
Member accurately states, the Commission favoured classification in category I, arguing: While is it true
that, formally speaking the direct link is between assistant and MEP and not between assistant and
Parliament it is nonetheless true in reality that MEPs in engaging their assistants act not as private
individuals or persons external to the Institution but, by virtue of their being MEPs, as an integral part of it.

Except
for Italy, which was the only national delegation which shared the Commission’s view, all
in the absence of a ‘direct’ employment link between
delegations thought that these children should,
assistants and Parliament, be ranked as category III pupils pending modification of the status of assistants.

The relevant extract of minutes of the meeting says: The Commission representative and the Italian
delegation maintained that these children should be considered to fall into category I but a number of
delegations objected. The Dutch delegation pointed to the illegal nature of the decisions that appeared to
have been taken (cid:1) as the document shows (cid:1) in admitting some of these children in category I. The Board
decided that children already admitted could remain in the schools in the category in which they had been
admitted. For future admissions it decided, although the Commission was not in agreement, to approve the
Administration and Finance Committee’s proposal that these children be classed in category III, in which
they should have priority.

As appropriate opportunities arise, the Commission will nonetheless continue to argue for inclusion of
MEP’s assistants’ children in category I, particularly if the status of assistants alters in line with the changes
proposed by Parliament in the context of the reform of the Staff Regulations for officials and other
servants of the Communities.

As the Honourable Member may know, according to the Convention of 21 June 1994, the European
Schools are establishments which were created primarily to educate children of the staff of the European
Communities. Other children may attend them within the limits set by the Board of Governors.

The Board of Governors, the non-Community intergovernmental organisation responsible for the Schools,
is charged with implementation of the Convention and holds the decision-making powers in educational,
budgetary and administrative matters necessary for that purpose. In exercising those powers, the Board has
adopted a rule which puts pupils into three categories for the purposes of admission and payment of
school fees.

Category I relates to children of staff in the service of the Community Institutions and bodies considered
by the Board to be comparable, who are employed directly and continuously for a minimum period of one
year. These children have to be admitted to the European Schools and are exempt from school fees.

Category II is comprised of pupils who are covered by individual agreements or decisions entailing specific
rights and obligations in regard to them.

C 280 E/148

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

Category III is comprised of pupils who are not covered by I or II. They are admitted if places are available.
An order of priority applies for admission and school fees are payable.

Responsibility for applying the Board ruling when pupils are enrolled rests with the headteachers of the
Schools.

(2003/C 280 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1459/03

by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 April 2003)

Subject: Employment and economic effects of takeovers

The European Parliament’s Directorate General for research has concluded a study on ‘Employment and
economic effects of corporate restructuring and takeover’ (Division for Social and Legal Affairs IV/WIP/
2003/01/008). It gives an overview of empirical studies in this field and draws some general conclusions.

Studies in UK, where most mergers and acquisitions (M & A) take place, have found UK takeovers to be
associated with significant falls in both employment and output. Employment in the new firms post-
takeover drops on average by 11 % in the five years following the bid.

The Parliament study refers to Unctad’s World Investment Report 1999:
‘Empirical evidence shows a
puzzling result, M & As fail in terms of wealth creation in remarkably high numbers’ (IV/WIP/2003/01/008
p. 6). It shows that the most common result of a merger is the following: profitability and productivity do
not improve, it seems to have a decelerating impact on market share growth, it is likely to have a negative
effect on R & D investments, etc. It is beyond any doubt that the employees will be profoundly effected by
a merger, due to changes in organisational structure, employment and working conditions and lay-offs.

What is the usefulness of takeovers if they are not empirically and unambiguously found to create wealth?

How does the Commission justify the proposal to have companies inform and consult with employees,
although they can be ignored in the final descision, knowing that many of the mergers result in major job
losses and profitability does not improve, or improves less than could have been the case without the
merger?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2003)

It is true that many restructuring operations, mergers and take-overs do not sometimes produce the
anticipated result in terms of increasing profitability, competitiveness and productivity of the companies in
question. But the question whether this is always the case is a very debated one (1). In fact, some studies
have argued that mergers and acquisitions can reduce production costs, increase output, improve product
quality, obtain new technologies or provide entirely new products. Some other studies have pointed out
that the implementation of a merger is often problematic and difficult, which explains why a large number
of mergers fail to deliver their promises in terms of value creation and synergies. One should therefore be
cautious about sweeping statements that mergers always fail. Mergers and acquisitions are sometimes the
best way for some firms to improve their efficiency. They are generally considered neutral if not beneficial
for the economy; for instance, the Community Merger Regulation, in Article 10(6) establishes a general
presumption of legality for concentrations of Community dimension. In any case, the conduction of
business is a prerogative of management in which the Union should not intervene.