WRITTEN QUESTION P-0640/00 by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Commission. Access to the EU interpreting service.
13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/23 by the fact that massive funds are being diverted from it to pay for the reconstruction of Kosovo. It appears that the Commission once again intends to fly in the face of Parliamentís wishes and give preference to industry over agriculture, which, against the depressing backdrop of rising unemployment, is a sector deserving of support. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 March 2000) The amount of direct income payments for those sectors concerned by Agenda 2000 reforms has been fixed within the Agenda 2000 package. The Parliament participated in Agenda 2000 legislation according to the relevant rules. Detailed rules for determining export subsidies, have been established for each sector. The refund amounts are normally fixed after consultation of the relevant management committee. The Commission has currently no intention to propose any change of these rules. Supporting democracy, peace and stability in the Kosovo region represents a major challenge for the Community. For 2001 and 2002 the Commission will propose a decrease of € 300 million in the existing annual financial perspective ceiling for sub-heading 1a of the Community budget concerning the common agricultural policy (CAP) excluding rural development, with a corresponding increase in heading four concerning external relations. It is important to distinguish between the level of the financial perspective ceiling and the real funding requirements of the CAP. The reduction of the level of the ceiling for sub- heading 1a does not imply decreased support to farmers nor questioning of the CAP reform decisions taken in Berlin. In the Commissionís view, the real budgetary needs of the CAP in 2001, based on the common market organisations as reformed in Berlin, are below the existing ceiling by an amount which is sufficient to accommodate the reduction of € 300 million. (2001/C 46 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0640/00 by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Commission (28 February 2000) Subject: Access to the EU interpreting service In addition to the conditions set out in the notice of competition, candidates for competition COM/ 1. LA/1051 for interpreters at the Commission were required to meet the further requirement of having followed a higher-education course lasting at least four years, a requirement of which they were not informed until their applications were rejected. How does the Commission explain this poor treatment of candidates? 2. What educational requirements ü specific designation of diploma and type of higher-education establishment and minimum duration of higher-education studies ü were met by applicants from the various Member States who were admitted to competition COM/LA/1051 and to previous interpreting competitions? According to paragraph II. B. 2 of the notice of open competition COM/LA/1051, the jury was to take 3. account of the different education systems when making its selection. (a) Does the Commission base this decision on Directive 89/48/EEC and on the minimum duration for higher-education studies specified therein? (b) How does it justify any deviation from full application of that Directive? C 46 E/24 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 (c) If there is any deviation from the above Directive, how does the Commission justify placing graduates of German colleges of higher education ( Fachhochschulení) at a disadvantage by comparison with graduates of higher-education establishments in other Member States whose diplomas, recognised as equivalent under the Directive, do not set higher requirements than these German colleges? (d) What steps are taken to ensure the greatest possible transparency and legal certainty for applicants where additional criteria and rules are applied? How many graduates of German Fachhochschulení are employed by the Commission in categories A 4. and LA (apart from national experts) without having been required to provide education certificates in addition to their college diploma? How many of the staff employed in categories A and LA graduated from British and Irish universities 5. with a bachelorís degree and were not required to provide any further certificates of education? Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (7 April 2000) The notice of competition for COM/LA/1051 (1) set out under point II. B. 2 that candidates must have Die Bewerber müssen ein abgeschlossenes Hochschulstudium completed a course of university studies: nachweisen. í The selection board, which operates autonomously within the limits set by the notice of competition, always decides about taking into account the admission of each individual candidate, differences in education systems and the principle of equal treatment of candidates. In observing the requirement that candidates had followed a higher education course lasting at least four years, the selection board acted in accordance with the principles applied by the Commission. The Commission requires candidates for the category A/LA to possess a university diploma giving access to doctoral studies. In case of German Fachhochschulení, the Commission takes into account the German law (HRG) of 1976 (which regulates Universitäten, Pädagogische Hochschulen, Hochschulrahmengesetzí Kunsthochschulen, Fachhochschulení). This Hochschulabschlussí without distinguishing law defines between the different diplomas. The Commission consequently accords the right to participate in an A/ LA competition to candidates submitting a German diploma of at least four years (eight-semester) duration. The Commission recognises differences between educational systems in Member States. In some cases, the standard length of degree offering access to doctoral studies is shorter than four years, and the Commission therefore accepts these particular degrees. As outlined above, the Commission is aware of the fact that under German law the requirement Nachweis eines abgeschlossenen Hochschulstudiumsí principally opens the competition for Hochschul-í and Fach- hochschulabsolventení so that the German applicants to the competition COM/LA/1051 were not aware of further restrictions. The Commission regrets this inadvertent lack of information and, in future competi- tions, will therefore clarify which further conditions have to be fulfilled in the notice of competition for the different Member States. Accordingly, German applicants will only be accepted for A/LA-competitions if they can provide a Fachhochschulabschluß von 8 Semesterní. The conditions set out in the notice of competition and as explained above have been applied equally 1. to all candidates for COM/LA/1051. The selection boards of previous interpretersí competitions, which took place in 11 languages, have taken comparable decisions on the admission of candidates, taking into account differences in education systems of Member States. However, the Commission would like to point out that each competition is dealt with independently. 2. Directive 89/48/EEC (on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three yearsí duration (2)) is aimed at the recognition of higher-education diplomas of at least three yearsí duration, in relation to undertaking regulated profession in one of the Member States. It is however not aimed at the recognition of academic 13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/25 titles which remains in the competence of Member States. The Commission is of the opinion that Directive 89/48/EEC is not applicable in relation to competitions organised by the European institutions. Instead, in order to decide if a diploma is accepted for access to its public function, the Commission has to base itself on the existing legislation of each individual Member State. 4. In the case of German graduates of Fachhochschulení, to whom the Honourable Member refers in her question, it can be noted that in Germany their diploma does not give them access to a career in the Höherer Dienstí, (which is comparable to category A/LA), but to Gehobener Dienstí which is comparable to category B at the Commission. In accepting candidates with a Fachhochschuleí degree of at least four years duration to A/LA competitions, the Commission has been acting in favour of these candidates, with the aim of taking into account differences in education systems in the Member States. 3. and 5. At the moment, no central records exist that allow the requested information to be readily obtained. In future, as part of the Reform process, a database will be established containing profiles of the academic and career qualifications of Commission staff. (1) OJ C 312, 14. 10. 1997. (2) OJ L 19, 24. 1. 1989. (2001/C 46 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0648/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (9 March 2000) Subject: Genetically modified seeds Would the Commission clarify what exactly is being communicated to Member States regarding the inclusion of (a) 98/294/CE Elgira Monsanto Bt Maize, (b) 97/98/CE Compa CB Novartis Bt/Ht maize, (c) 97/98/CE Jordi CB Novartis Bt/Ht maize and (d) 98/293/CE Chardonell Aventis Ht maize GM seeds in the EU Common Catalogue? Would the Commission confirm whether marketing consent has been given for (a) 97/98/CE Chardonell Aventis herbicide tolerant maize, (b) 97/98/CE Compa CB Novartis Bt/ herbicide tolerant maize, (c) 97/98/ CE Jordi CB Novartis Bt/Ht maize and (d) 98/293/CE Chardonell Aventis Ht maize, on which national seed lists these seeds are currently included and if any are subject to field trials in any Member State? Would the Commission clarify whether it supports the inclusion of 98/294/CE Elgira Monsanto Bt Maize, 97/98/CE Compa CB Novartis Bt/Ht maize, 97/98/CE Jordi CB Novartis Bt/Ht maize and 98/293/CE Chardonell Aventis Ht maize GM seeds in the EU Common Catalogue and when a decision is expected on this matter? Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (22 May 2000) The current status of the specific genetically modified maize varieties the Honourable Member mentions is as follows. The marketing of seeds of genetically modified varieties of agricultural plant species including maize is currently subject to authorization under two different pieces of Community legislation: the authorisation for placing on the market átransformation events/productsí, pursuant to Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (1), aiming to protect human health and the environment, and the provisions of Council Directive 70/457/EEC of 29 September 1970 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (2) aiming at compliance with a set of agricultural criteria