WRITTEN QUESTION E-2268/99 by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Commission. Recognition of a masseur's qualification in the EU.
C 303 E/40 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 also get information on their rights under Community law through the Signpost Serviceí (providing toll- free phone numbers in all Member States) or via the Internet. (1) The general system is not applicable to professions for which specific Community legislation harmonising the minimum qualification requirements has been passed (for example: doctors, general care nurses, midwives, dentists, pharmacists and to some extent also architects). For those professions, áautomaticí recognition is foreseen. (2) OJ L 19, 24. 1. 1989. (3) OJ L 209, 24. 7. 1992. (4) See Article 8(2) of Directive 89/48/EEC and Article 12(2) of Directive 92/51/EEC. (2000/C 303 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2268/99 by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Commission (13 December 1999) Subject: Recognition of a masseurís qualification in the EU In a specific case the authorities in Lower Bavaria (Germany) rejected an Austrian nationalís application for the recognition of his qualification on the following grounds: Recognition on the basis of Directive 92/51/EEC (1) and thus pursuant to section 2(4) of the Law on Masseurs and Physiotherapists is ruled out because these occupations do not conform to the German career profile of the masseur and medical swimming pool attendant, even though the occupational titles are identical in some respects. When the applicant inquired at the Federal Ministry in Bonn, however, he was told the opposite, that it was indeed possible for his training to be recognised pursuant to section 16 within the framework of the EU directives. The Commission is requested to answer the following questions: 1. Is it lawful for the recognition of an Austrian nationalís qualification as masseur to be refused in Germany? 2. What legal basis should actually be applied? (1) OJ L 209, 24. 7. 1992, p. 25. Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (14 January 2000) 1. Yes, insofar as the professions are different as explained below. 2. In principle, the general system defined by 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 (1) 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 is intended to cover the recognition of higher-education diplomas and professional qualifications within the Community, to the exclusion only of those exceptions provided for by the Directives. However, a number of conditions must be met; in particular, the persons concerned must be fully qualified and must apply for recognition of their diplomas or qualifications in the Member State in which they intend to exercise the profession for which they have been qualified in another Member State. If the conditions of the Directives are not satisfied, a Member State can refuse to apply them. A decision to refuse recognition must, of course, be reasoned, so that the grounds for exclusion from the Directives are clear. 24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/41 Individual decisions are based on a comparison of the migrantís qualifications and the training required for the relevant profession in the host Member State (national rules apply in this case). The field of activity of the professions in the two Member States is also taken into account. The national authorities are responsible for assessing individual cases in accordance with the procedure defined in the Directives, which provide for a reasoned decision and notification within four months of the submission of the completed application. The fact that two professions in different Member States have a similar title is only an indication that the professions are the same. Rather, it is the content, i. e. the field of activity, of the profession concerned which determines the identity of two professions in two different Member States, and not the professionís denomination. If the differences are too great, the two professions may be considered different in the Member States concerned, in which case the general system need not apply. In addition to this exceptional situation, when there are substantial differences between the curricula of the two Member States, the migrant may be asked to take suitable measures to compensate for those differences. In the case in point, the applicant should consider exercising his rights under his host countryís national law, and in particular the right of appeal. The Directive mentioned above gives migrants the opportunity to appeal before the courts under national law. In addition, according to information from the German authorities, migrants can also request the Ministry of Health (Gesundheitsministerium) of the Land where the decision has been made to reexamine the decision. (1) OJ L 19, 24. 1. 1989. (2000/C 303 E/037) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2276/99 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Council (13 December 1999) Subject: Supervisory authority for Internet sites In view of the increase in the number of Internet sites providing details of how to make chemical drugs, obtain weapons or acquire children for sexual purposes, could the European Union set up an authority to supervise Internet sites and identify those which are clearly violating the Member Statesí laws and will it examine what measures need to be taken to prevent laws being broken and criminal offences committed via the Internet? Reply (10/11 April 2000) The European Union shares the Honourable Memberís concern regarding the proliferation of Internet sites containing information encouraging criminal behaviour. For this reason, it entrusted to Europol the task of fighting Internet crime, to the extent that such crime falls within its mandate. Europol has been operational since 1 July 1999 and is already actively fighting trafficking in drugs and human beings, including the exploitation of minors and the production, sale or distribution of child-pornography material, within the limits of the objectives described in the Europol Convention (1) (2). Apart from situations falling within the competence of Europol, Member States are responsible for supervising the information available on the Internet. One access provider has already been prosecuted for providing a site which distributed illegal information. As stated in the reply to Question No H-0202/97 (by Anne McIntosh), the Council attaches the greatest importance to the question of supervising the information made available on the Internet, while trying to reconcile the supervision of information available on sites with the general principles of freedom of information