WRITTEN QUESTION E-4042/03 by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Bullying at school.
Date: 2004-01-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: action programme, project evaluation, violence at school

C 78 E/902

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

At Community level, the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work is developing specific measures
in the healthcare sector. Various information on health and safety at work in the healthcare sector, and in
particular on the prevention of injuries from needles or other sharp instruments,
is available on the
Agency’s website (3).
Important information includes guidelines on the prevention of needle injuries,
examples of good practice, and studies and recommendations in this area, from the Member States, from
other European countries and from outside Europe.

The Commission analyses constantly the situation regarding the prevention of health and safety risks for
workers in all sectors, including the healthcare sector. Should its analysis reveal the need to develop new
Community instruments in this particular area, the Commission would not hesitate to propose the
appropriate measures.

(1) OJ L 262, 17.10.2000.
(2) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989 (as amended by Directive 95/63/EC, OJ L 335, 30.12.1995, and Directive 2001/45/EC,

OJ L 195, 19.7.2001).

(3) http://europe.osha.eu.int/good_practice/sector/healthcare/fr/indexbytopic.php

http://europe.osha.eu.int/good_practice/sector/healthcare/fr/indexbytopic11.php?id=274

(2004/C 78 E/0953)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4042/03

by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject: Bullying at school

Children must be able to feel safe at school. Bullying and other verbal and physical violence, both in the
classroom and elsewhere, must be controlled and prevented. With a view to this, the EU Member States
decided in 1997 to set up the project ‘Violence at Schools’.

The project was to run for two years and to involve exchanges of information and cross-border activities
and projects. A group of experts was established to advise on the activities. After two years, the Council
was to evaluate the Violence at Schools project.

1.

2.

How was the Violence at Schools project evaluated?

Is it true that there was never any follow-up to the project, and if so, why not?

3.
Is making schools safe, including controlling bullying, currently an objective of Community policy or
of any of the education programmes? Does it, for example, fall under the following objective of the
Comenius programme: developing and disseminating methods for combating educational exclusion and
school failure, promoting the integration of pupils with special educational needs, and promoting equal
opportunities in all sectors of education?

If the answer to question 3 is negative, is the Commission working on initiatives to place this topic

4.
on the European educational agenda?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Sixteen projects were

1. and 2.
from
22 September 1997 initiating pilot activities concerning violence in school. They were in operation from
1997-1999 and had built-in internal and/or external evaluation. The expert group mentioned in the
Council conclusions was continuously informed about the progress of the projects.

the Council’s conclusions

funded in the

framework of

Six projects on violence in school emerged partly as a follow-up to projects funded in the framework of
the initiative ‘Violence at Schools’. They were funded from 1999-2001 in the framework of the Connect
initiative.

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.