WRITTEN QUESTION E-0471/04 by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission. Misuse of the model European disabled person's parking card.
Date: 2004-02-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, competence of the Member States, facilities for people with disabilities, fraud, parking area, principle of subsidiarity, vehicle documents

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/409

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The Commission would refer
Mrs Figueiredo (1).

(1) See page 343.

the Honourable Member

to its answer

to written E-0243/04 by

(2004/C 84 E/0475)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0467/04

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Mission expenses

What were the mission expenses for (i) Members and (ii) staff of the Commission in respect of their
attendance at part-sessions of the European Parliament held in Strasbourg (a) during 2001 and (b) during
2002?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

The breakdown of mission expenses necessitated by attendance at part-sessions of the European Parliament
held in Strasbourg in 2001 and 2002 and by category was as follows:

Year

2001

2002

Cabinet staff

Category

Other Commission
staff

Members

Total

209 245,01

340 794,65

1 089 143,59

1 639 183,25

311 144,85

355 632,28

1 114 182,32

1 780 959,45

(in euro)

The above expenses relate to measurable and billed costs of transport, accommodation, meals, and other
expenditures such as telephone and fax use for work purposes.

(2004/C 84 E/0476)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0471/04

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject: Misuse of the model European disabled person’s parking card

In many European towns and cities, the disabled person’s parking card exempts disabled persons from
parking charges (more accurately, the parking tax). With the introduction of the model European disabled
person’s parking card, the printing of the related car registration number on the card is no longer
permitted, on the grounds that the card should be able to be used as widely as possible by and for disabled
persons.

In towns and cities with high parking rates, the possession of a disabled person’s card (not bearing a car
registration number) is very useful (for the able-bodied as well) for avoiding the payment of parking
charges.

Accordingly, there is, in practice, widespread abuse of the card system, and large numbers of cards are
stolen from disabled persons’ vehicles. The assumption that the cards are being used fraudulently may be

C 84 E/410

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

supported by the fact that the 27 September 2003 edition of De Telegraaf, a Dutch newspaper, carried an
advertisement in which a stolen card was offered for sale. The current computerised systems make it
virtually impossible to establish the desired connection between enforcement of the law after a declaration
of theft and registration of the stolen cards. As a result, the desired positive effect of the cards, namely
assistance for disabled persons, is nullified.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this problem?

2. With a view to preventing abuse of the system, would the Commission be prepared to authorise the
printing on each European disabled person’s card of the personal details of the driver of the vehicle, unless
the holder of the card expressly declines the opportunity to do so (for example, in the case of a disabled
passenger who is obliged to use various cars for travelling)? If not, why not?

In the event of its declining to pursue the proposal set out above, is the Commission prepared to

3.
investigate alternatives? If so, what might those alternatives be?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

Council Recommendation 98/376/EC of 4 June 1998 on a parking card for people with disabilities (1)
recommends that Member States introduce a parking card for people with disabilities and issue it in
accordance with the respective national provisions, on the basis of a standardised model.

The Recommendation also provides for mutual recognition of parking cards based on the standardised
European model, so that cardholders may benefit from the associated parking facilities available in the
Member State in which they happen to be.

According to the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission cannot intervene in national legislation. It is up
to Member States to introduce mutual recognition of parking cards in accordance with the national,
regional and local
laws and regulations (highway code, provisions and arrangements for application)
specific to each Member State.

The Commission has not been directly informed of the incident mentioned by the Honourable Member,
but it is aware of the situation (theft and resale of parking cards) in several Member States.

It therefore intends to discuss these problems (monitoring activities, also with a view to the enlargement
process) with the senior representatives of Member States taking part in the meetings of the High Level
Group on Disability Matters, which assists the Commission in this area.

(1) OJ L 167, 12.6.1998.

(2004/C 84 E/0477)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0475/04

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Language discrimination in notices of vacancy

(23 February 2004)

I have learned from the www.lingvo.org/eo/2/15 website about a number of instances of discrimination on
the grounds of language which manifestly infringe Community legislation on the free movement of
this involves the ‘native-speaker’ condition applied by EU-funded NGOs,
workers. More specifically,
technical support offices and private companies when recruiting staff.

I am aware that the Commission has already set out its views on this issue in several answers to written
questions. The fact that the Commission has drawn the attention of its staff to the possibility of notices of
vacancy being discriminatory and asked them to take the requisite measures vis-à-vis their contractors is a