WRITTEN QUESTION E-0383/04 by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Postage rates.
Date: 2004-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: postal charges, postal service, stamp duty, tax harmonisation, universal service

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/209

In view of Article II-14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, what steps will

2.
the Commission take to protect the right of immigrants’ children to education?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

the Commission’s disposal, action one of measure 1.1 under the
According to the information at
Operational Programme ‘Education and Initial Vocational Training’ is indeed contributing to ‘supporting
the inclusion of children with cultural or linguistic particularities into the education system’.

The above-mentioned Operational Programme does not finance classes or staff recruitment but funds
educational and technical material, training of teachers, counselling of families and awareness-raising
amongst national and local education administrations.

A budget of EUR 57,7 million is allocated to this action, of which EUR 30 million is already under
implementation. Up to now these actions have benefited: 2 300 children of immigrants in first level and
2 700 in second level education, 6 260 Muslim pupils, mainly in first level education; 6 780 Roma pupils
in first and 120 in second level education.

The Commission is not aware that children of immigrants who do not have a residence permit have been
refused enrolment in primary schools. According to the information at the Commission’s disposal, law
2910/2001 provides that access to compulsory education is also exceptionally granted to these children.
However, the Commission will contact the Greek authorities to obtain further information on the Home
Affairs Ministry’s Decree.

(2004/C 84 E/0253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0383/04

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Postage rates

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that the postage rules for letters sent between Member
States (cid:1) and in particular the ‘E’ stamp (cid:1) are comparable, allowing for exchange rate variations?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

In the question, the Honourable Member raises the question of the comparability of postage rates for cross
border mail and in particular the ‘E’ stamp.

The Community framework for postal services is set by the Postal Directive 97/67/EC (1), as amended by
Directive 2002/39 (2). This Directive provided for a harmonised regulatory framework based on general
principles leaving a significant margin of manoeuvre for Member States in compliance with the
Subsidiarity principle.

In terms of postal tariffs, these general principles are set in Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 97/67/CE.

Article 12 sets general principles that the tariffs for universal services should be affordable, geared to costs,
transparent and non discriminatory. Furthermore, Article 13 requires that, in setting terminal dues for intra
Community cross-border mail, the Member States shall encourage their universal service providers to

C 84 E/210

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

respect the following principles (cid:1) that terminal dues be fixed in relation to the costs of processing and
delivering in-coming cross border mail (cid:1) that levels of remuneration be related to the quality of service
achieved and that terminal dues be transparent and non-discriminatory.

The above principles apply to all universal service tariffs including those collected through electronic
stamps.

In practical terms, however, as there may be differences in the costs of delivery in the Member States, there
may be differences between cross border tariffs and terminal dues, (and, therefore the price of electronic
stamps for cross border services), even where they are geared to costs.

Finally, in terms of the actual organisation of the collection of tariffs, such as the E Stamp, Article 8 of the
said Directive states that Member States have the right to organise the issue of postage stamps in
accordance with their national legislation.

(1) Directive 97/67/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the
development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service,
OJ L 15, 21.1.1998.

(2) Directive 2002/39/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with

regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services, OJ L 176, 5.7.2002.

(2004/C 84 E/0254)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0393/04

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Animal By-Products Regulation

The above regulation has recently been implemented within Scotland resulting in numerous inter-
pretations. While no-one is against the spirit of the legislation,
its enactment in Scotland is causing
concern. Many small, one-person businesses are facing unacceptable levels of charges, which will ultimately
force them into bankruptcy.

The reason for my question was to enquire whether the Commission, when drafting this legislation,
envisaged a cut-off point where small businesses fell out of the scope of the Regulation, or could that be
dealt with at Member State level?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Regulation (EC) No1774/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 October 2002 (1), as amended by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 808/2003 of 12 May 2003 (2), lays down health rules concerning animal
by-products not intended for human consumption. It was adopted on 3 October 2002, published on
10 October 2002 and applied from 1 May 2003.

The Regulation covers small businesses as far as the collection, transport, storage, handling, processing and
use or disposal, importation, export and transit of animal by-products are concerned to prevent these
products from presenting a risk to animal or public health. There is no cut-off point foreseen where small
businesses would fall out of the scope of the Regulation, and Member States cannot derogate from its
provisions.

A fundamental revision of the Community rules applicable to animal by-products was necessary in the
light of the recent feed-borne crises (bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), dioxin, foot and mouth
disease, etc.) and the wide variety of approaches that existed in Member States as regards the financial
support for processing, collection, storage and disposal of animal by-products.