WRITTEN QUESTION P-0825/04 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Opinion of the Council's Legal Service challenged by the Commission.
Date: 2004-03-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Azores, European Commission, Madeira, Portugal, Spain, conservation of fish stocks, fishing area, fishing regulations, transparency in decision-making

C 84 E/886

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0979)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0819/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject: The European School in Amsterdam

Parents of a number of pupils, as well as teachers at the European School in Amsterdam have expressed
deep concern at the Netherlands authorities’ announced cut in public funding for the school, apparently
the result of a decision to cut subsidies for basic-level foreign language teaching.

The Portuguese authorities claim that they provide funding for a school in Portugal where Dutch is taught,
and hence would expect reciprocal treatment, and have so far refused to take over the task of funding
from the Netherlands.

Since teaching the language of the country of origin in primary schools is vital in facilitating freedom of
movement and is practised and funded by substantial Community appropriations for the European school
system, this issue is bound to be of interest to the Community institutions.

Can the Commission therefore say whether it does not consider that a legislative initiative should be
launched in the form of a policy strategy providing guidelines for the Member States in this sphere, or any
other initiative aimed at avoiding mutual shirking of responsibility and helping to ensure that language
teaching may continue, as it is extremely important for communication and freedom of movement in
Europe?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

On the basis of the information provided, the question concerns the organisation of education systems.
As it is, according to Article 149 of the EC Treaty, responsibility for the content of teaching and the
organisation of education systems lies with the Member States. The role of the Commission in the area of
education is to encourage cooperation between Member States and to support and supplement their
action.

Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that, on 25 July 1977, the Council adopted Directive 77/486/EEC on
the children of migrant workers (1). This Directive is concerned with promoting
the education of
improvements in the conditions of freedom of movement for workers as regards the reception and
education of their children, and underlines how important it is for host Member States to take appropriate
measures, in conjunction with the Member States of origin, to promote the teaching of the mother tongue
and of the culture of the country of origin of such children, with a view principally to facilitating their
possible reintegration into the Member State of origin. The Commission has no plans to put forward any
new legislative proposals.

(1) OJ L 199, 6.8.1977.

(2004/C 84 E/0980)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0825/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject: Opinion of the Council’s Legal Service challenged by the Commission

Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (1) ensures the continued protection of the waters off the
Azores and Madeira until the entry into force of a regulation fixing the maximum annual fishing effort or,
at the latest, until 31 July 2004.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/887

This is a simple fact, which was confirmed by the Council’s Legal Service in its opinion on the matter
delivered at the meeting of the Council’s Working Party on Fisheries held on 19 February (File No 6670/04
of 25 February).

The Commission corroborated this fact in its press release of 3 February 2004 (IP/04/153) in which it
states ‘the proposed ban would ensure the continuation of the protection hitherto afforded to these
habitats by the special access regime’.

In the meantime, on 5 February the Spanish authorities informed the Portuguese press that
Commission’s legal service had confirmed that the special access regime was no longer in force.

the

On 6 February a ‘note de dossier’ emerged, recorded in the Council’s minutes as a ‘speaking note’ from the
Commission, which despite not dealing with this issue in either its statement of the problem or its
conclusions,
the
Regulation can be ignored.

lead to the conclusion that Article 15 of

incorporated a paragraph which might

Can the Commission explain this total reversal of its position on the protection of the waters off the
Azores and Madeira in the space of three days?

Can it say how the Spanish authorities were able to guess on 5 February that this radical change in
position was to take place the following day?

Can the Commission give an assurance that it is not behind the unidentified sources which created a false
‘legal opinion’ from the Commission’s Legal Service that would bring forward the liberalisation of access to
the waters off the Azores and Madeira, thereby totally contradicting the position of the Council’s Legal
Service?

(1) OJ L 289, 7.11.2003, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

At the meeting of the Working Party on Internal/External Fisheries Policy of the Council on 19 February
2004, the Commission circulated a speaking note concerning the entry into force of some Articles of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort
relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 and
repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95. More specifically, it was said in the speaking
note that Articles 5 (on the access regime to the Azores and other outermost regions) and 13 (on the
control regime) of this Regulation entered into force on 14 November 2003 and that they prevail over the
1995 Regulations, despite the fact that these latter Regulations are still in force for another few months.
This speaking note was based on the opinion of the Commission’s Legal Service.

As for the Council Legal Service, according to the document that the Honourable Member is referring to
(Document 6670/04 of the Council),
it said that Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 was in force since
14 November 2003 and applies from then unless expressly said otherwise, which is fully in line with the
Commission’s view as referred to above.

The press communication of the Commission of 3 February 2004 relates only to the proposal of the
Commission to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 (1) which would prohibit trawling in the waters
around the Azores as well as around Madeira and the Canary Islands; it is not related to the access regime
as such. The idea behind the proposed ban is to continue, at Community level, the restrictions on fishing
gear applied so far within the framework of the special access regime. That would ensure that these waters
continue to be protected from the damage that bottom-trawl fishing gear can cause to the highly sensitive
deep-water habitats found in these areas.

C 84 E/888

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Hence, the Commission has not changed its point of view that has been maintained since this Regulation
was adopted by the Council.

Finally, the Honourable Member can be assured that the Commission is in constant dialogue with the
concerned Member States in order to ensure as smooth an application of the new rules as possible.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical

measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, OJ L 125, 27.4.1998.

(2004/C 84 E/0981)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0829/04

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject: Parmatour: tourism concern owned by the Tanzi family, involved in the Parmalat crisis

It has emerged that Parmatour was used not only for its declared objectives, but also for other purposes.
This led to negative operating results. Repeated attempts were made to remedy this situation by means of
various restructuring measures, the latest of which (cid:1) the dismissal of 60 employees and an industrial
regeneration plan which was to produce positive results over a three-year period (cid:1) had been in place for a
year. Following the declaration of insolvency and Parmalat’s going into extraordinary administration, the
plan was frozen.

Management of tourist activities differs radically from that of industrial activities, in that the latter can
temporarily dissociate the production stage from the sales stage.

It is essentially a service industry, based on the vital need for mutual trust between supplier and customer,
with due respect for minimum market conditions, failing which the company may be unable to remain on
the market and pursue its activity.

The inability to remain on the market, even for short periods, causes the company’s value to collapse, even
in the event of it repositioning itself, which in turn jeopardises the various interests it represents.

In view of the above, will the Commission indicate what measures it intends to take to enable this area of
activity,
in the broadest sense of the term, to have the best possible chance of being promoted and
revitalised, rather than being stifled and virtually wiped out, as is currently happening?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission does not intend to take any position on the activities of Parmatour, which is involved in
the financial crisis at Parmalat being investigated by the Italian judicial authorities.

the objectives of

One of
the Commission’s recent Communication on ‘Basic orientations for the
sustainability of European tourism’ (1) is to define a frame of reference to ensure the viability, continued
growth, competitiveness and commercial success of the tourism sector.
In this Communication, the
Commission emphasises that open governance requires businesses to assume responsibility for conducting
their operations in a manner that entails full implementation of appropriate corporate social responsibility
practices for tourism value chain services and enterprises of any size or type.

(1) COM(2003) 716 final.