WRITTEN QUESTION P-0083/04 by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission. Restrictions on freedom of movement for Flemish travel guides on trips abroad.
Date: 2004-01-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: freedom to provide services, recognition of vocational training qualifications, tourism, unpaid work

C 78 E/928

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

should be entitled to all benefits in kind which become medically necessary during a temporary stay in
another Member State, taking into account the nature of these benefits and the expected duration of the
stay. The second objective of the proposal is to provide all insured persons with direct access to the care
provider during their temporary stay in another Member State by abolishing the obligation to contact in
advance the sickness insurance institution of
the place of stay. A third measure proposed by the
Commission, concerns the effectiveness of the application of the Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 by
introducing a new Article which defines on the one hand the relationship between the persons covered by
the Regulation and the social security institutions and on the other hand improves the mutual co-
operation between the institutions of the Member State.

With regard to blind and partially sighted persons,
the proposed amendments to Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 will thus improve the access to benefits in kind during a temporary stay in a Member State
other than the one where they are insured and registered. However, the above-mentioned proposal does
not provide for harmonised criteria for registration as a blind or partially sighted person nor for mutual
recognition of the registration as a blind or partially sighted person.

(1) COM(2003) 378 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0982)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0083/04

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject: Restrictions on freedom of movement for Flemish travel guides on trips abroad

It is reported that Flemish travel guides volunteering to accompanying groups on cultural trips to Italy,
Spain, France and Greece can face serious problems when providing their services as guides in the Dutch
language. They run the risk of being fined or even arrested by the local authorities because local rules and
regulations do not permit foreigners to act as guides in their locality. These, however, are guides who, their
volunteer status notwithstanding, undoubtedly have the necessary professional qualifications and training
(in, for example, history of art) to enable a group to benefit from their expertise.

Does the Commission not consider that any such local rules and regulations prohibiting foreign guides
from providing their services to groups they accompany on visits to public places are incompatible with
the free movement of persons as laid down in the Treaty?

If so, will the Commission take the necessary steps to prevent such infringements, and will it lay down a
for a directive on the recognition of professional
set of rules, by analogy with the new proposal
qualifications, that will meet the needs of this category of qualified volunteers by enabling them to provide
their services to their own groups, on a personal basis and in their own language, on visits to other
countries, without the risk of incurring penalties.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

The Commission would like first of all to recall that the Treaty provisions which are relevant to the
question, i.e. Article 49 of the EC Treaty on the freedom to provide services, only apply to activities of a
commercial nature. It is unclear, on the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member,
whether the activities carried out by travel guides who volunteer to accompany groups of tourists from
other Member States on their visits to Greece, Spain, France and Italy are to be considered as commercial
activities falling under the relevant articles of the EC Treaty.

As concerns any activities of a commercial character under Community law, the following reasoning
applies: The Court of Justice has held in its rulings of 26 February 1991 in the cases C-180/89, C-154/89
and C-198/89 concerning the freedom to provide services for the profession of tourist guides that: ‘the
general
interest and the widest
possible dissemination of knowledge of artistic and cultural heritage of a country’ can constitute an
overriding reason justifying a restriction on the freedom to provide services.

interest in the proper appreciation of places and things of historical

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/929

However, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the application of national rules to providers
of services established in another Member State must be appropriate for securing the attainment of the
objective which they pursue and must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see Court of
Justice ruling of 25 July 1991 in case C-76/90). On the basis of information provided, the Commission has
analysed national rules which might restrict the freedom to provide services for tourist guides who
accompany a closed group of tourists on a tour from another Member State in the light of the EC Treaty,
in particular Article 49 and the Court’s jurisprudence. As a consequence, the Commission has sent on the
basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty, a letter of formal notice to Italy on 19 December 2003.

The Commission is certainly ready to examine the situation in other Member States on the basis of further
information which the Honourable Member might provide.

that

stipulates

The proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional
qualifications (1)
relating to professional
qualifications, restrict the freedom to provide services when the beneficiary is legally established in
another Member State.
It contributes to a further simplification of requirements with regard to the
provision of services, as compared to establishment, and clarifies the concept of the provision of services.
The adoption of this proposal would, therefore, provide further certainty and guarantees for tourist guides
providing services into different Member States.

the Member States may not,

reasons

for

(1) OJ C 181 E, 30.7.2002.

(2004/C 78 E/0983)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0087/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 January 2004)

Subject: Use by casinos of EU rules in support of their fight against the Netherlands government policy

aimed at limiting compulsive gambling

1.
Is the Commission aware of Question No 462 put on 11 November 2003 by the Netherlands
Member of Parliament De Wit (socialist party) to the Ministers of Justice and Economic Affairs on the
Netherlands policy regarding games of chance, and the answer given on 12 December 2003 by Minister
Donner to the effect that an EU Member State can restrict the supply of games of chance for reasons of
public interest, such as combating gambling addiction, and that this certainly applies if the Member State
itself does not encourage people to take part in lotteries, games of chance or betting for the sake of
financial gain for its own treasury?

2.
Does the Commission share the view of Minister Donner as expressed in this answer? Does this mean
that in future foreign casino chains will not be able to establish themselves in the Netherlands on the
grounds of freedom of movement within the internal market?

3.
Is it aware that currently a number of companies, such as ‘JVH Gaming’ from Tilburg and the French
firm ‘Tranchant’ are nonetheless using EU rules in support of their attempts to obtain licences to open
casinos in the Netherlands and to interpret
licences to run slot machine arcades more broadly as
authorisation to open full casinos?

4.
Is the Commission also aware that the firms referred to in paragraph 3 take the view that refusal of
their requests for licences are in violation of EU regulations? In the opinion of the Commission, is there
any justification for this view?

5.
Does the Commission share the view that, given the public interest and the need to combat
compulsive gambling, games of chance of this kind should continue to fall within the decision-making
remit of the national authorities?

Is the Commission prepared to close any possible loopholes in European legislation which might

6.
allow firms to circumvent the legislation of the national governments concerned?

Source: The Dutch newspaper BN-De Stem of 6 January 2004.