WRITTEN QUESTION P-0901/00 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission. Tour Managers and Tour Guides.
28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/181 (2000/C 374 E/213) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0898/00 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission (16 March 2000) Subject: Suppliers of services to Community institutions the new commitments concerning transparency in the work of In the context of the Community institutions (also sanctioned by the recent publication of the Commissionís White Paper on reform) the European Parliamentís Internet website provides information on public contracts for services awarded by Parliament and other Community bodies. Those interested can also use this website to subscribe to an update notification system. This service is managed by the American private company Netmind, whose site is automatically accessed during the subscription process. Can the Commission therefore say: 1. Whether the American company was chosen by the Community institutions and, if not, what selection procedures were used? 2. Whether the Community institutions have access to the personal data recorded when a user registers, whether it is the property of the American company or of the institutions and what use is made of the data? 3. Why one of the institutions opted for a service offered by an American private company, in view of the fact that other information servers in the European Union offer exactly the same service, but using Community IT structures? 4. In view of the fact that the American companyís service which Parliament is using is still in a beta version, whether it considers that this offers sufficient guarantees as regards efficiency, accessibility, performance and, above all, confidentiality? 5. Whether this choice should not be considered questionable, not least in view of the recent hearing on the Echelon network? Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (17 April 2000) The content of the website to which the Honourable Member refers is managed directly and exclusively by the Parliament. It is thus to the Parliament that the Honourable Member should address his request for information. (2000/C 374 E/214) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0901/00 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 2000) Subject: Tour Managers and Tour Guides I understand that the European Commission has had some involvement in this issue in the past and is well aware of the difficulties Tour Managers experience in attempting to exercise their right to work in other EU countries. London members of the International Association of Tour Managers have contacted me. Whilst recognis- ing the clear difference of the qualification Tour Guide, in being able to guide in áhistoric monumentsí and museums, they feel that both the stretching of this definition and excessive demands for qualification as a Tour Guide (in some places including residence), are unreasonable restrictions. C 374 E/182 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 Instances of Tour Managers being fined for walking groups from a coach to their restaurant have been cited as not uncommon. Does the Commission intend to take any further action in this regard to clear up this confusion and end these restrictions? Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (13 April 2000) The matter of the difficulties faced by tour managers in the exercise of their profession abroad has been raised with the Commission by the relevant professional organisations such as the European Tour Operators Association (ETOA), the European Travel & Tourism Action Group (ETAG) and the Interna- tional Road Transport Union (IRU). On this matter in general the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answers given by the Commission to Written Questions E-2615/96 by Mr Kellett- Bowman (1) and E-797/98 by Ms Daskalaki (2). The Commissionís working paper on tourist guides, which was adopted in 1997, provides all relevant details on the applicable Community legislation (3). The Honourable Member indicates that two restrictions are regarded as unreasonable by the International Association of Tour Managers: the interpretation of the definition áhistoric monuments and museumsí and the excessive demands for tourist guide qualifications. On the first point, the Commission observes that in its judgements on tourist guides (judgements of 26. 2. 1991, Case C-154/89 France [1991] ECR I-659, C-180/89 Italy [1991] ECR I- 709 and C-198/89 Greece [1991] ECR I-727), the Court of justice clearly ruled that making the provision of services of tourist guides subject to the possession of a professional licence infringes the freedom to provide services, where those services consist in guiding tourists in places other than ámuseums or historical monuments which may be visited only with a specialised professional guideí. Therefore, the provision of services by tourist guides coming from other Member States is limited by this exception. As to the type of museums and historical monuments which are subject to specific national rules, tourist guides must comply with national legislation. The Commission has carefully analysed the legislation adopted by the Member States to comply with these judgements and found it compatible with Community law in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The Commission considers that in the absence of detailed criteria of interpretation laid down by the Court the exception for ámuseums or historical monuments which may be visited only with a specialised professional guideí can be interpreted in the light of the principle of proportionality. According to this principle, national laws that restrict the freedoms established by the EC Treaty must be proportionate to the goals pursued. The Court ruled that the aim of this exception is to protect the general interest in áthe proper appreciation of places and things of historical interestí and to ensure áthe widest dissemination of knowledge of the artistic and cultural heritageí of a Member State (see judgement of 26 February 1991 in Case C-154/89, paragraph 21). Therefore, the proportionality of the legislation adopted by each Member State in order to comply with the átourist guidesí judgments should be assessed, for every site or every category of sites included in the exception, against the requirement of a specialised professional guide to protect áthe proper appreciation of places and things of historical interestí and to ensure áthe widest possible dissemination of knowledge of the artistic and cultural heritageí. Such an appraisal lies primarily with the Member State concerned as it is the national authorities which are best placed to assess local historical, cultural and artistic interests. The Commission considers that too broad an interpretation of this exception, covering practically all the museums and historic monuments could be in contradiction with the Courtís judgements. On the second point, in the absence of harmonisation of the training and other conditions of access to a profession, each Member State remains free to regulate professions within their territory and to establish the level of qualifications required for their exercise. When Member States regulate the profession of tourist guide Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 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 (4) and Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (5) apply. To the Commissionís knowledge, the condition of residency is not required in any Member State in order to obtain recognition of the qualification as tourist guide. The Commission has never received any complaint concerning a refusal by a Member State to recognise a tourist guide qualification or concerning any 28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/183 particular difficulty regarding recognition procedures in this area. Interested parties are invited to make known the existence of such requirements to the Commission. tour manager and that of As regards the imposition of fines on tour managers, the problem appears to be due mainly to a confusion tourist guide. According to the principle of between the profession of subsidiarity, the responsibility for the definition of the scope of these two professions lies with the Member States. The facts brought so far to the Commissionís attention in this connection do not indicate a practice that could constitute an infringement of the EC Treaty. The Commission would in any case remind the Honourable Member that Article 49 (ex Article 59) of the EC Treaty (freedom to provide services) can have direct effect and confers rights on individuals that national authorities must respect. Interested parties can therefore best protect their rights by applying to the national courts for the annulment of such fines under its provisions. (1) OJ C 72, 7. 3. 1997. (2) OJ C 323, 23. 10. 1998. (3) SEC(97) 837 final. (4) OJ L 19, 24. 1. 1989. (5) OJ L 209, 24. 7. 1992. (2000/C 374 E/215) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0902/00 by Efstratios Korakas (GUE/NGL) to the Council (20 March 2000) Subject: Reform of the system of aid for cotton Under Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 1553/95 (1), before the start of the 1999/2000 marketing year the Commission is required to present a report on the operation of the system of aid for cotton and to submit a reform proposal only if the report shows it to be necessary. However, the Commission has submitted a reform proposal directly. áthis requirement [to draw up a report on the operation of the system as set out in paragraph 11 of Protocol 4 annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece] was partly anticipated by the Report from the Commission to the Council on Greek requests in the cotton sector (COM(98) 10 final)í. the Commission acknowledges that In its explanatory memorandum, The Commission has failed to honour its obligations and, moreover, has put forward arguments in the explanatory memorandum to its reform proposal which, in the absence of a thorough analysis, paint a distorted picture of the operation of the sector. The cost of the cotton scheme depends largely on the price of cotton on the world market. The Commission contends that áexpenditure could exceed EUR 900 millioní. It chose to submit its proposal at a time when world prices were at their lowest since the previous reform of the cotton scheme. Furthermore, the world cotton price has risen by 48 % since the date of adoption of the Commission proposal barely three months ago. In fewer than three months the reform proposal has become outdated and irrelevant. As a result, the institutions required to adopt a position on the Commission proposal have three problems to contend with: the Commissionís failure to honour its obligations, the lack of a reliable analysis, and the use of economic arguments which could prove misleading. Will the Council demand that the Commission honours its undertakings under Regulation (EEC) No 1553/95? Will it ask the Commission to submit a new, updated proposal which takes account of the report on the operation of the system of aid for cotton? (1) OJ L 148, 30. 6. 1995, p. 45. Reply (25 May 2000) After submitting its report on Greek requests regarding the cotton sector to the Council in February 1998, and in accordance with the invitation addressed to it by the Council in June 1998, the Commission submitted to the latter in December 1999 two proposals for reform of the system of aid for cotton