WRITTEN QUESTION E-3241/03 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Breaking down of bureaucratic barriers.
Date: 2003-11-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU national, administrative formalities, anti-discriminatory measure, free movement of workers, language teaching, migrant worker, teacher

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/243

This growing funding need, in line with the Bank’s lending growth, has been conducted according to a
consistent and balanced borrowing strategy. This strategy involves a proactive approach to addressing both
institutional and retail investors, both of which play an important role as buyers of EIB securities.

As concerns the specific involvement of Union citizens in EIB bond issues, it is important to note that EIB
enjoys a strong following in the European retail market. Retail investors buy a very wide variety of EIB
bonds, but certain bond issues respond to the specific requirements of retail investors.

Marketing to retail investors needs to be carefully balanced against marketing to institutional investors,
who remain central to the success of EIB’s bond issuance as well as the subsequent performance of EIB
bonds in the secondary market, in itself a key consideration. Also, the substantial costs of certain types of
retail marketing, for example through advertising, are an important consideration.

In conclusion, EIB’s approach to retail
investors in the Union is already well developed and suitably
supportive of its objectives as a ‘policy driven public bank’. However, this needs to be seen in the context
of the leading role played by institutional investors in the debt capital markets in Europe. Nonetheless, EIB
continues to explore opportunities for further sustainable development of this strategy, taking account of
fast evolving market conditions.

(2004/C 70 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3241/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Breaking down of bureaucratic barriers

Following bureaucratic wrangling that lasted a good five years and after appealing to the European
Ombudsman, an Italian citizen obtained recognition in Spain that her Italian degree in Foreign languages
and literature was equivalent to the corresponding Spanish qualification in Hispanic Philology. When in
September 2001 the Basque Government’s education department in Bilbao was drawing up a list of
temporary Italian language teachers for its School of Languages (Escuela de Idiomas), this Italian citizen
was not allowed to compete on the same terms as Spanish graduates in Romance Philology with a
specialisation in Italian, despite having submitted her higher education certificate from the Escuela de
Idiomas for Italian. Her years of service were counted as being those of a permanent member of the
teaching staff in the Italian state education system from 1980 to 1989, and as a teacher of Italian language
and culture to foreigners from 1990 onwards. To secure the same rights as her Spanish counterparts she
was obliged to complete a second degree in Italian Philology at the University of Salamanca. In the
meantime, she was removed from the above-mentioned list because she had not ‘supplied any service’ to
the education department in question during the course of the 2001-2002 academic year, despite being
hired at that time as a temporary lecturer in Italian language and literature at the University of the Basque
Country, which comes under the authority of the selfsame Department of Education, Universities and
Research for the Basque Country. In order to gain readmission to that department’s list of temporary
teachers she was asked to present a certificate in Basque, which she obtained this year. This Italian linguist
is currently confronted with fresh difficulties in gaining admission to the list of temporary teachers for the
School of Languages in Navarre, where she is not being accredited with her years of service in the state
education sector in Italy (since the translation provided by the consulate is not considered a ‘sworn’
translation). Furthermore, the degree recognised as being equivalent in Spain is not being accredited to her
as a second degree, since it is being deemed a prerequisite for demonstrating her knowledge of Spanish,
despite the fact that she has also obtained a degree from a host country university.

Does the Commission not consider the experiences of this EU citizen to be a clear sign of covert

1.
discrimination?

2. What scope does the Commission have for overcoming these loathsome obstacles, which are a
reflection not only of bureaucratic lunacy but also of a lack of will on the part of the host country
government to eliminate this form of discrimination?

C 70 E/244

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Answer given by M. Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 December 2003)

The Italian citizen referred to by the Honourable Member has addressed two letters to the Commission.
The information so far provided to the Commission does not show any clear breach of Community law in
her case. The following analysis was communicated to her in August 2003. Procedures for academic
recognition are governed by national law, since according to Article 149 of the EC Treaty Member States
are responsible for the content of teaching and the organisation of their education systems. Only the
prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of nationality applies. There is no evidence that such
discrimination has occurred in the case of the citizen concerned. On the other hand, the different
treatment of the person concerned compared with Spanish graduates in Filologia Romanica does not
appear discriminatory, since her degree has not been recognised as equivalent to this degree but to the
degree in Filologia Hispanica. As far as the knowledge of the Basque language is concerned, if Basque is an
official language, the Spanish authorities are entitled to require a knowledge of this language, sufficient for
the exercise of the teaching profession, in accordance with the principles established by the Court of
justice of the European Communities in cases ‘Groener’ (C-379/87) and ‘Angonese’ (C-281/98).

As regards recognition of professional experience, the position of the Commission is that migrant workers’
previous periods of comparable employment acquired in another Member State must be taken into
account by Member States’ administrations for the purposes of access to the public sector in the same way
as applies to experience acquired in their own system. The Commission has asked the complainant to
specify whether her professional experience is not recognised in general
terms or only due to the
translation problems.

Finally, concerning the taking into account of her Italian degree as a second degree, more information on
the conditions of admission to the list of temporary teachers is needed in order to evaluate the situation of
the complainant. She has been asked to provide such information.

(2004/C 70 E/264)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3245/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Increased costs of hospital treatment and waste-disposal arising from restrictions on cost-saving

re-use of surgical instruments

1.
Can the Commission confirm that the way in which the distinction has been made in the EU since
1993 between ‘single-use’ and ‘multiple-use’ surgical instruments that are placed temporarily in the human
body during surgery prevents certain expensive instruments from being re-used after an operation, so that,
for example, a catheter pump costing between EUR 8 000 and EUR 13 000 that has been placed in the
heart has to be thrown away after use?

2.
Is the Commission aware that such ‘single-use’ instruments are recovered, cleaned and repaired in
Europe not only for the benefit of the Third World, but also for use in Europe itself, in particular in
Belgium and Germany? Is it further aware that, in Germany, the Vanguard company has recycled one and
a half million instruments from 400 hospitals, resulting in savings in hospital costs of EUR 1-2 billion per
year?

Has the Commission considered the position of the ‘European Association for Medical Device
3.
Reprocessing’ (EAMDR) to the effect that hospitals would save millions of euro every year if more surgical
material was recycled, and that, over the last two years, the association tested some 20 000 single-use
instruments for suitability for re-use?

How does the Commission assess the EAMDR position to the effect

4.
that existing provisions
governing single use now appear in practice to protect the interests of the industry (united under its
Eucomed association) rather than those of patients, and that continuing with this practice results
principally in an adverse impact on the environment and/or waste of money spent on disposing of the
waste created by compulsory discarding?