WRITTEN QUESTION E-3158/03 by Antonio Mussa (UEN) to the Commission. Recognition of academic qualifications.
Date: 2003-10-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: administrative formalities, free movement of workers, mutual recognition principle, recognition of diplomas, recognition of vocational training qualifications, right of establishment

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/225

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2003)

The Commission hereby informs the Honourable Member that

the MELKA company received
1.
Community financial assistance during CSF I (1990-1993), in particular EUR 1 095,44 under the European
Social Fund in 1991.

In recent years, the Union has developed a worker involvement policy for dealing adequately with
2.
the social consequences of company restructuring. As a result of that policy, restructuring operations must
be preceded by information and consultation of employees’ representatives with the aim of avoiding or
reducing their social impact, in accordance with the Community Directives on ‘Collective Redundancies’ (1),
‘Transfers of Undertakings’ (2), ‘European Works Councils’ (3) and, from March 2005 onwards, ‘Information
and Consultation’ (4).

As regards the case in question, the Commission has not been informed about the way in which the Melka
company intends to deal with the social implications.

The aforementioned Directives have been transposed in the Member State concerned. It is therefore up to
the national authorities to ensure that the workers’ rights laid down in these Directives are respected.
Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees must be
transposed into national law by 25 March 2005 at the latest.

The Commission argues that, when restructuring, enterprises should always take into account the effects
that those decisions could have on their employees as well as on the social and regional context. This has
recently been underlined in the Commission Communication concerning Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) (cid:1) A business contribution to Sustainable Development (5).

Furthermore,
in January 2002 the Commission invited the European social partners to engage in a
dialogue on anticipating and managing change with a view to applying a dynamic approach to the social
aspects of corporate restructuring. The social partners have recently sent to the Commission the results of
their joint work on this topic. They consist of a set of reference guidelines for companies and their
workers in the event of restructuring. The Commission very much hopes that these results, as well as other
follow-up actions, will disseminate throughout Europe good practices of corporate restructuring, thus
helping companies and their workers adequately to address the social dimension involved.

(1) Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
collective redundancies, OJ L 225, 12.8.1998 (this Directive consolidates Directives 75/129/EEC and 92/56/EEC).

(2) Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of

to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of
undertakings or businesses, OJ L 82, 22.3.2001.

(3) Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a
procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of
informing and consulting employees, OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.

(4) Directive 2002/14/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for

informing and consulting employees in the Community, OJ L 80, 23.3.2002.

(5) COM(2002) 347 final.

(2004/C 70 E/243)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3158/03

by Antonio Mussa (UEN) to the Commission

(24 October 2003)

Subject: Recognition of academic qualifications

The issue of recognition by the Member States of academic qualifications in the EU is one of great
importance which has a direct impact on citizens and restricts their right to freedom of movement and
their establishment in other Member States for purposes of work.

C 70 E/226

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Since one of the products of European integration is precisely the free movement of citizens and since
student and worker mobility will become increasingly widespread, the Community has in the past passed
legislation on the recognition of academic qualifications.

In fact, there is no automatic recognition of qualifications, with the conditions that individuals have to
fulfil in order for their qualifications to be recognised falling solely within the sphere of competence of the
Member States.

All too often, however, recognition becomes all but impossible in practice because Member States stipulate
exorbitant conditions and the bureaucratic procedures are extremely long and burdensome.

Does the Commission intend to bring forward initiatives to consolidate and simplify the current system for
the recognition of qualifications by making recognition more automatic, basing it on common criteria and,
in any event, setting a time limit on the recognition process?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

The EU has a precise legal framework for the recognition of professional qualifications for the regulated
professions. It is important to differentiate this recognition from the recognition of titles for academic
purposes and from mechanisms ensuring the transparency of qualifications on the labour market.

The ‘general system’ for the recognition of professional qualifications, which is based on the principle of
mutual recognition, applies to all regulated professions that are not covered by a specific automatic
recognition scheme for certain craft, industrial and commercial activities and the professions of doctor,
nurse responsible for general care, dentist, veterinary surgeon, midwife, pharmacist and architect. Mutual
recognition is based on the Member States accepting professional qualifications awarded by other Member
States in order to take up a given profession. If necessary, recognition of these professional qualifications
may be conditional upon the migrant successfully completing compensation measures (a test or adaptation
period). The purpose of these compensation measures is to make up for the considerable differences which
exist between the migrant’s training and that required to take up the same profession in the host Member
State.

In March 2002, the Commission submitted a proposal for a directive on the recognition of professional
qualifications (1), which consolidates, simplifies and clarifies existing Community legislation in this field.
It also introduces new elements, including liberalisation of the freedom to provide cross-border services
and the creation of common platforms for professions covered by the general system based on mutual
recognition. This proposal is currently being adopted by the Parliament and the Council.

In the proposal, a common platform means a set of criteria of professional qualifications which attest to a
sufficient level of competence for the pursuit of a given profession and on the basis of which professional
associations accept qualifications obtained in the Member States. If the Commission considers that the
common platform facilitates the mutual recognition of qualifications, on the basis of technical work
carried out by the professional associations concerned at European level, it takes a decision in accordance
with the regulatory (comitology) procedure. As a result of this Community instrument, if migrants meet
the corresponding conditions, the Member States do not impose compensatory measures. The idea behind
these common platforms is to try and make the free movement of professionals easier by making the
recognition of qualifications more automatic for migrants who meet the criteria chosen for the profession
concerned.

into question the Member States’ responsibility for regulating the professions and
This does not call
determining the training conditions required to take up and pursue these professions.
In addition,
a Member State can always examine the duration and content of the applicant’s training and compare
these with the requirements imposed on its territory, and impose compensatory measures if the migrant
does not meet the conditions for the platform concerned.

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/227

As regards the time limits within which Member States decide upon applications for recognition for the
regulated professions, the directives in force already contain precise rules on this matter. Depending on the
directive which applies, this time limit is three or four months. In its above-mentioned proposal for a
directive, the Commission proposed a single three-month deadline. Lengthy delays in reaching a decision
on the recognition of qualifications can be justified when a migrant needs to complete his/her application.
The proposal for a directive introduces a one-month deadline within which the competent authority must
acknowledge receipt of the application and, if necessary, inform the migrant of any missing documents, as
well as an obligation for the competent authorities to cooperate closely in order to expedite the
recognition procedure.

(1) COM(2002) 119 final.

(2004/C 70 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3162/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(24 October 2003)

Subject: Fraud involving the resources of the European Social Fund

The European Social Fund, which comes under the direct responsibility of the Commission, allocates
DKK 500 million each year in Denmark. The purpose of these appropriations is to help guarantee high
employment, the integration of refugees and immigrants, equality between men and women, sustainable
development in all regions of Denmark and economic and social cohesion.

In Denmark a body known as ‘Paraplyorganisationen for de Etniske Mindretal’ (umbrella organisation for
ethnic minorities (cid:1) POEM) was allocated DKR 2 million from the Social Fund. The money was
administered by the Danish Integration Ministry and the City of Copenhagen. With this money, POEM
hired a private firm (Inplacement) which offered courses intended to help unemployed immigrants find
work. In an article of 15 October 2003 the Danish daily Ekstra Bladet showed that all participants on the
course fail, and that the course does not qualify its participants for jobs. It also appears that POEM has
legal competence to deal with the firm of Inplacement, since it turns out that the deputy
doubtful
chairman of POEM is the sister of the director of Inplacement. That being so, the Integration Ministry
suspended payments to POEM.

In order to obtain economic support both from the EU and from Denmark, POEM supplied fraudulent
information concerning the number of its members listing member organisations which had never existed.
It provided money for bogus courses which did not qualify their participants for jobs, but instead
channelled EU monies to private firms having family connections with leading members of its own
organisation. This immigrants’ organisation did not live up to the objectives of the Social Fund regarding
the integration of immigrants, and should never have received a penny from the Social Fund.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to ensure that appropriations from the Social Fund
can no longer be paid to organisations which commit fraud with the Fund’s money and in any case do not
comply with the objectives of the Fund, and how will the Commission recover the money which it has
paid out under false pretences?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

the Structural Funds (1), Article 38,

In accordance with Commission Regulation (CE) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general
the main
provisions of
responsibility for carrying out audit and control for the European Social Fund in Denmark in order to
ensure the correct use of funds. The Commission’s responsibility in the first instance is to assess whether
each Member State has a system of audit and control which gives sufficient assurance of proper

the Danish Managing Authority has