WRITTEN QUESTION E-4044/03 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Free passes for local residents to the grounds of heritage and tourist sites.
Date: 2004-01-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU national, cultural heritage, equal treatment, prices, provision of services, residence, tourism

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/903

A complete evaluation of the Connect initiative was carried out and published in 2002. It contains detailed
information on each of the six projects as well as overall conclusions. The conclusions mention among
intercommunication and exchange of experience. All of the projects were,
other issues the lack of
however, said to have had very good potential
in each of their fields. It is known to be a common
difficulty for this type of project to ensure continuity especially in terms of funds. The conclusions
mention in this context that two of the six projects at the time of the evaluation had presented pre-
proposals in the framework of Socrates, Comenius 3 (networks).

3. and 4.
the Socrates programme.

Quality projects to combat violence in schools can be funded through the Comenius action of

Between 2001 and 2003, five projects out of a total of 186 projects selected for funding in the framework
of the Comenius 2.1 European Cooperation Projects for the Training of School Education Staff were
working in the field of violence in school. The theme is covered by one of the 21 networks selected in the
framework of Comenius 3 within the same period.

(2004/C 78 E/0954)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4044/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject: Free passes for local residents to the grounds of heritage and tourist sites

Can the Commission confirm that under forthcoming EU regulation, heritage and tourist sites will be

1.
unable to provide people with free passes to their grounds based on geographical proximity?

2.
As a result of such a European law, will heritage and tourist sites, such as Hampton Court Palace in
London for example, be obliged to revoke the passes giving free access to their grounds to local residents?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

In its Judgment of 16 January 2003 in Case C-388/01 on admission to museums in Italy, the Court of
Justice ruled that, like those based on nationality, preferential rates granted on the basis of the place of
residence (cid:1) even local (cid:1) of visitors to cultural sites were discriminatory and hence incompatible with the
EC Treaty, and in particular the principle of free movement of services.

According to consolidated case-law, a distinction drawn on the basis of residence is liable to operate
mainly to the detriment of nationals of other Member States, since the majority of non-residents are
foreigners. In particular, it is immaterial whether the contested measure may affect nationals of the State in
question resident in other parts of the national territory as well as nationals of other Member States.

A distinction based on local residence could be acceptable only if it were based on overriding reasons in
the general interest (cid:1) in other words, not purely economic reasons (cid:1) and if it respected the principles of
necessity and proportionality.

In its proposal for a Directive on services in the internal market adopted on 13 January 2004, the
Commission upholds the principle, as expounded in the case-law of the Court of Justice, of prohibiting
distinctions based on nationality and place of residence, with respect to terms of access to services.

C 78 E/904

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

It is in the light of these principles that the competent national authorities should examine cases where
there are differences in fees for admission to tourist sites, such as those mentioned in the question by the
Honourable Member, and should take the appropriate measures on the basis of the particular features of
each situation in order to avoid discrimination between nationals of the various Member States.

(2004/C 78 E/0955)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4049/03

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject: GM products

Is there any rule requiring establishments serving food to the public to indicate the use of products
containing GM substances when the latter exceed the threshold laid down by the relevant legislation?

If not, does the Commission consider that legislation imposing such a requirement should be introduced in
the interests of fair trading and food safety?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Neither the Community legislation in force (1) nor the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (2),
which will apply from April 2004, include any obligation on restaurants or mass caterers to label as such
foods obtained from, or containing ingredients obtained from, genetically modified organisms.

The new rules on labelling of foods containing GM material, and in particular Article 12(1) of Regulation
(EC) No 1829/2003, apply to foods delivered as such to final consumers or mass caterers. This means they
apply only to foods which are delivered by mass caterers to consumers in their original state; on the other
hand, the labelling obligations do not apply to foods subjected to processing or preparation.

Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 provides the possibility of adopting,
through the
committee procedure, specific rules concerning the information to be provided by mass caterers supplying
food to final consumers. As yet, no such action has been taken.

The broader question of the information to be provided to consumers by catering establishments is being
addressed as part of the general review of food labelling legislation.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 49/2000 of 10 January 2000 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1139/98
concerning the compulsory indication on the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced by genetically modified
organisms of particulars other than those provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC, OJ L 6, 11.1.2000.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on

genetically modified food and feed (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 268, 18.10.2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0956)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4050/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Proposal for a directive concerning credit for consumers

(7 January 2004)

1.
Could the Commission state its position on the appropriate level of harmonisation? Does the
Commission accept that its approach of full harmonisation is not appropriate to the EU context and causes
unnecessary problems in some Member States?