WRITTEN QUESTION E-0381/04 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Operation of reception classes — second operational programme: education and initial training.
Date: 2004-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, access to education, child of migrant, education of foreigners, educational system, operational programme, organisation of teaching, right to education

C 84 E/208

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

while improving the quality of life of the work force and their families as well as of the local
community and society at large, including in times of restructuring and in the anticipation of change;

(cid:1) the Communication from the Commission, ‘The European Social Dialogue, a force for innovation and
change’ (2). In the Communication, the Commission underlines that attainment of the strategic goals
set in Lisbon -full employment and reinforced social cohesion- depends, to a considerable extent, on
the action taken by the social partners at all levels. European social dialogue is therefore seen as a key
tool for ensuring the positive management of change, in order to reconcile the flexibility essential to
businesses with the security needed by employees, particularly in the event of major restructuring;

(cid:1) a European Monitoring Centre on Change (EMCC) has been established to provide accessible, reliable
data and opportunities to exchange views, ideas and practice to bring about better understanding,
anticipation and management of change. The EMCC’s objective is to provide the tools for key actors in
European social policy to make more informed decisions about managing the processes of change.

As regards the verification of a violation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 (3),
the
Commission does not have information that any aid has been granted to Acciai Speciali Terni under this
Regulation.

From the elements of information submitted by the Honourable Member, it cannot be concluded that there
has been a violation of the Community competition rules,
in particular, of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 4064/89 (4) and Article 82 of the EC Treaty.

(1) COM(2002) 347 final.
(2) COM(2002) 341 final.
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 12 December 2002 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the

EC Treaty to State aid for employment.

(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between

undertakings.

(2004/C 84 E/0252)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0381/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Operation of reception classes (cid:1) second operational programme: ‘education and initial training’

In the second operational programme ‘Education and Initial Training’ in Greece, and in sub-programme 1,
measure 1, action (a), entitled ‘support for the integration of children with special cultural and language
characteristics into the educational system’ there is provision for the improvement of the integration into
the educational system of pupils from population groups which are at risk of educational inequality, with
the aim of preventing their marginalisation.

The reception classes in compulsory education are funded by the above action and contribute to the
problem-free integration of immigrant pupils into the education system. In the last school year, 2003-
2004, the Ministry of Education and the Regional Education Administration did not take on the staff
required for the operation of the reception classes and, in many cases where there were staff, suspended
the operation of the reception classes to enable the teachers to cover for the vacant posts for teachers
employed by the State teaching the normal classes. Thus, according to information supplied by the
Ministry of Education to the Children’s Advocate, of the 558 reception classes only 295 operated. At the
same time, the Ministry of Home Affairs has issued an edict prohibiting the enrolment in primary school
of the children of immigrants who do not have a residence permit. The results of these actions is that the
children of immigrants are deprived of one of the basic rights of children, that of education.

1. What progress has been made in this action under the second operational programme,
and initial training’?

‘education

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