WRITTEN QUESTION E-2479/99 by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) and Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) to the Commission. Directive 96/67/EC.
24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/67 5. Will the Council request vzw Museum van Europa to apply in the museum, correctly and in its entirety, the language legislation of the Belgian Federation, since such legislation can be regarded as a form of mutual respect for languages and cultures? If not, why not, given that failure to apply such legislation would detract from mutual respect for languages and cultures in the Belgian Federation? Reply (10/11 April 2000) At its meeting on 23 November 1999, the Council was informed by the Greek delegation of the project for the creation of a European Museum. On that occasion, it noted the concerns expressed by that delegation regarding the objectives and priorities for the project, as conceived by the Belgian association under private law which is organising it. The Council has never had any direct contact with the non-profitmaking organisation in question. The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, under the Treaty, the Community is to contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States while respecting their national and regional diversities and bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore. In the context of its competence in this respect, and if the matter is directly referred to it, the Council will adopt an appropriate position. (2000/C 303 E/059) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2479/99 by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) and Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Directive 96/67/EC 1. By letter of 7 September 1999, the Director-General of the Commissionís Directorate-General VIII (Transport), Mr Robert Coleman, informed the Italian Government that he had some misgivings as to the compatibility with Community law of certain provisions of Decree Law No. 18 of 13 January 1999. In his opinion, Articles 13, 14 and 20 of the Decree Law, which concern not only the qualifications required of those providing ground-handling services but also social protection, formed an obstacle to the opening-up of the market sought by Council Directive 96/67/EC. 2. Recital 6 of the Council directive, however, confirms the right of the Member States, in the light of the principle of subsidiarity, to take into consideration the specific, in other words national, nature of the sector, recital 10 the right of the Member States to introduce this directive gradually, recital 8 the need to take account of employment conditions, in other words established employment conditions, at airports, recital 24 the right of the Member States to ensure an adequate level of social protection for the staff of undertakings providing ground-handling services, and Article 18, finally, the right of the Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure protection of the rights of workers. 3. It is well-known that, given the existence of high unemployment, protection of employment levels and of the employment conditions of employed workers is a matter of major concern and action on the part of the main Institutions of the European Union ü the Council, the Commission and Parliament. In view of these facts, and given that Mr Colemanís letter of 7 September 1999 to the Italian Government is clearly unjustified, can the Commission say whether it intends to take action to remedy this situation so as to comply rigorously with the letter and fundamental principles of Community law and, in addition, what action it intends to take with regard to officials, such as Mr Coleman, whose actions on behalf of the Commission far exceed their authority? C 303 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (1 February 2000) As the guardian of the Communityís legal system, the Commission must ensure that the treaty, and the action taken by the institutions in pursuance thereof, is properly implemented. Those activities relate not only to the transposition, per se, of the directives into national law, but also compliance by national laws with the substance of the rules applying at Community level. Article 18 of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 (1) on access to the ground-handling market at Community airports provides that Member States may take the necessary measures to ensure protection of the rights of workers and respect for the environment, but also that such action must be taken without prejudice to the application of the directive, and subject to the other provisions of Community law. The aim of the directive is to ensure free access to the market for the supply of ground-handling services in terms both of self-handling and the provision of services by third-parties. That opening is being conducted in stages, in accordance with the timetable laid down by Article 1 of the Directive. In order to meet these conditions, the provisions of the Ministerial order transposing the directive must not prevent the principle of free access being applied by introducing restrictive rules solely for the sector concerned. The provisions of the decree transposing the directive into national law and enabling extensive discre- tionary powers to be conferred on the authorities, during the selection procedure, in order to restrict that free market access takes no account of the aims of the directive as set out, in particular, in recitals 14 and 15 thereof, and would seem to infringe the provisions of Articles 6, 7, 11, 14 and 18. As provided for in Article 226 (former Article 169) of the EC Treaty, the Commission is therefore required to take any action needed in order to ensure that the Community standard is transposed and implemented correctly. The letter to the Italian authorities referred to was written precisely in order to ensure a consistency of this kind. (1) OJ L 272, 25. 10. 1996. (2000/C 303 E/060) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2496/99 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Measures to facilitate Community-wide health care Everyone knows that individual Member States have raised objections to the proposal to authorise their citizens to travel abroad for treatment to be reimbursed by the patientís country of origin when such treatment is not really feasible in that country. However, everyone also knows that people are often prevented from making such ájourneys of hopeí for bureaucratic and mere financial reasons, even when the journeys are perfectly justified. Can the Commission say what can be done at European level to ensure that Community citizens are allowed, or at least enabled, to obtain treatment, without financial burdens or at least on acceptable terms B and hence without excessive expense (as is the case at present) ü in all Community hospitals? Might it be possible for a European fund to be set up for this purpose? Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (17 January 2000) The question concerns the possibility for Community citizens of travelling to a Member State other than their country of residence to obtain medical treatment. This possibility depends on two legal bases