WRITTEN QUESTION E-0376/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Higher education tuition fees.
C 330 E/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 If, for example, a French student studying in Scotland did not have to pay fees, although a French student studying in England, which is still the same Member State, did have to pay fees, would the Commission consider this to be discrimination? (2000/C 330 E/163) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0376/00 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission (14 February 2000) Subject: Higher education tuition fees Devolution in the UK has led to the anomaly where Scottish and EU students will be exempt from paying tuition fees in Scotland whereas English, Welsh and Northern Irish students will be the only EU students who are not exempt. As there is no precedent for this type of devolution within the EU, does the Commission feel that this constitutes a case of discrimination against English, Welsh and Northern Irish students? If so, what actions do it intend to take? Joint answer to Written Questions E-0374/00, E-0375/00 and E-0376/00 given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (15 March 2000) Under the terms the EC Treaty, each Member State is responsible for the content of its teaching and the organisation of its education system. Under Community law, the Member States are not obliged to award grants or aid to help students to cover their education fees. This is a matter for the Member States to decide. It is only when a Member State awards grants of this kind to nationals that the Treaty requires it to treat non-nationals in the same way. The principle of equal treatment means, in practice, that all teaching establishments must accept students from other Member States under the same conditions as their own nationals. Students may therefore not be required to make any extra payment on grounds of nationality. Given that students from other Member States are treated in education establishments in Scotland in the same way as students from that country, the situation to which the Honourable Member refers does not involve discrimination on grounds of nationality and is therefore not contrary to Article 12(ex Article 6) of the EC Treaty. The fact that the regulations governing enrolment fees are different in the rest of the United Kingdom is a matter of national law and is not within the Communityís competence. As regards the mobility of students under the Erasmus programme, the general rule is that all students participating in the programme are exempted from enrolment fees. Consequently, the Scottish arrange- ments do not affect mobility under Erasmus. Finally, as regards the application of the competition rules to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission feels that the activities of universities within the national education system should not be considered as commercial or financial activities and that the competition rules do not therefore apply. Nor can these activities be regarded as services within the meaning of the Treaty. The Court of Justice has already ruled that courses provided in a higher education establishment which are funded primarily by the State do not constitute services within the meaning of Article 50 (ex Article 60) of the EC Treaty. 21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/145 If the measures to which the question refers apply to university and higher education establishments, where the purpose of the Member State is not to make a profit but to fulfil its duty to its population in the social, cultural and educational field, this does not constitute a service within the meaning of the Treaty. In fact, the system referred to is generally funded by the State and not by the students or their parents. In any case, the nature of the activity is not affected by the fact that the students or their parents are sometimes obliged to pay education fees to make some contribution to the operating costs. (2000/C 330 E/164) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0379/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission (14 February 2000) Subject: Measures to provide information on the current denied-boarding compensation system The Commission proposal COM(1998) 41 final (1) of 30 January 1998 proposed amendments to Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (2) and established common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport. In the proposal the Commission stated its intention of increasing information to passengers, which was deemed insufficient, in particular by displaying notices at check-in counters (Article 3). In addition, the Commission intended to launch an information campaign on passengersí rights to compensation when denied boarding. Is the Commission aware that notices on passengersí rights in cases of overbooking are not displayed on check-in counters? Does it intend to take any measures to combat this? Given the cases of malpractice by airlines of which the Commission is aware in which passengers have not received compensation, or have been only partially compensated, as a direct result of a lack of information, could the Commission indicate when it will carry out the information campaign to European citizens, and the various forms this will take? (1) OJ C 120, 18. 4. 1998, p. 18. (2) OJ L 36, 8. 2. 1991, p. 5. Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (31 March 2000) The Commission has for some years been concerned about the implementation and effectiveness of Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport. It became aware of a number of cases in which passengers were not fully compensated, largely because they were not informed of their rights. This led the Commission to propose, two years ago, the amendment of the Regulation. One aim of the amending regulation was to improve information for passengers by the display of notices at check-in points. However adoption of the regulation has not been completed by the Council. Consequently there is no obligation at present to put up notices at check-in counters. Faced by delay in the adoption of the amendment, the Commission recently launched a study on the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91. The aim of the study is, first, to make an inventory of the legal measures that Member States have taken to apply the regulation and of the rules that airlines have laid down to deal with overbooking and, second, to assess how all these measures have worked in practice. The Commission will then consider whether further action is needed