WRITTEN QUESTION E-0503/04 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. National obstacles to the application of Directive 98/5/EC.
Date: 2004-02-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Luxembourg, capacity to exercise rights, free movement of workers, lawyer, linguistic discrimination, professional society, right of establishment

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/417

In Spain there are serious cases of discrimination against children with regard to their access to sporting
leagues, in terms of administrative red tape or the refusal of the Sports Federations to allow them to join,
although they are Community citizens.

What is the Commission’s view of the refusal of Spanish sporting federations to allow children who are
nationals of EU Member States to join, thus preventing them from practising their chosen sports?

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

The concept of citizenship, which is enshrined in Article 17 of the EC Treaty, has helped to extend and
consolidate equal treatment and the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality (1).

As already mentioned in several of its answers (2), the Commission feels that a sporting association
regulation which limits the number of amateur players having the nationality of other Member States who
may be fielded could be contrary to Community law, notably Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (3).

The Commission is fully aware of the difficulties mentioned by the Honourable Member and is currently
examining various cases involving European citizens practising amateur sport in Member States other than
their Member State of origin. In order to ensure equal treatment, the regulations of sporting federations in
all Member States are being examined for compatibility with the principle of non-discrimination.

However, the role given to the federations by the public authorities varies greatly from one country to
another, which could make it difficult to attribute the disputed sporting regulations to certain Member
States.

Once it has examined these regulations, the Commission will announce what steps are to be taken if it
finds that discrimination that is incompatible with Community law is taking place.

(1) See CJEC judgment of 20 September 2001, Grzelczyk, C-184/99, ECR, I-6193.
(2) See answer to Written Question E-2621/99 by Mr Sánchez García, OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000.
(3) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

(2004/C 84 E/0487)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0503/04

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: National obstacles to the application of Directive 98/5/EC

(23 February 2004)

The adoption of European Parliament and Council Directive 98/5/EC (1) of 16 February 1998, whose
purpose was to facilitate the permanent exercise of the profession of lawyer in an EU Member State other
than that in which the lawyer had acquired his or her qualifications, aroused great expectations. In many
cases these have been severely disappointed.

Several Member States have put maximum red tape in the way of the effective application of the Directive,
since following transposition into national
law, the lawyers’ colleges of various countries have raised
numerous obstacles to the establishment of lawyers from other Member States, particularly with the excuse
that the lawyer does not know the official language of the host country, something which with regard to
certain countries, such as Luxembourg, really constitutes a barrier which is extremely difficult to overcome.

Does the Commission believe that the fact that someone does not speak a national language such as
Luxembourgish, for example, is a reason for that Member State to refuse to enter a lawyer from another
Member State in the country’s College of Lawyers?

(1) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 36.

C 84 E/418

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The lack of knowledge of an official language of the host Member State for the establishment of lawyers
under their home-country professional title poses a problem with regard to Directive 98/5/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of
lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained.
Besides, practise in that State under a home-country professional title ensures that consumers are properly
informed (1).

In the case of Luxembourg, the Commission asked it so submit its comments on this requirement.
Luxembourg’s reply is being examined in order to determine what action should be taken in this case.
The Commission will certainly inform the Honourable Member of any action taken.

The Commission has no knowledge of similar requirements in other Member States, but is prepared to
examine any information the Honourable Member might submit concerning this matter or any other
obstacles.

(1) As pointed out in recital 9.

(2004/C 84 E/0488)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0504/04

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Incineration of meat-and-bone meal

Various European media have recently reported on uncertainties about the incineration of meat-and-bone
meal in Spain in 2003. According to official government figures, 400 000 tons of meat-and-bone meal
was disposed of by means of incineration. According to the Spanish organisation representing operators of
incinerators, however, the figure was only 40 000 tons.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this issue?

2. Will the Commission call on Spain to explain the 360 000 ton discrepancy? If not, why not?

3. Will the Commission take measures to protect the health of European consumers and prevent this
meat-and-bone meal from entering the food chain, in accordance with the current ban on feeding livestock
with meat-and-bone meal? If so, what measures? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission sent a questionnaire to Member States on 29 March 2001 asking for details of current
disposal routes, the amount of animal by-products disposed of via each route and the disposal costs. As a
result of the questionnaire the Commission issued a:
‘Commission services paper on the processing,
disposal and uses of animal by-products in Member States’ (1).

The Spanish authorities indicated that there was an estimate annual output of just less than 400 000
tonnes of processed animal protein, part of which was stored in Spain and part was sent to other Member
States as trade, for incineration, co-incineration or petfood. Burial in landfill sites and use as fertilisers on
land were also possible disposal routes, as well as transformation in biogas and composting plants to
produce biogas and biofertiliser/compost. The reply did not give a breakdown of the figures.

Figures from the industry revealed that just over 8 000 tonnes of meat and bone meal were being sent for
incineration, and that there was a lack of incineration capacity in Spain.