You are on page 1of 2

8. 6.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 174/123

To offset this risk, the Member States are employing exaggeratedly protective legislation and, for example,
placing difficulties or complications in the way of the examinations expressly intended to convert a lawyer’s
qualification recognized in the Member State of origin into one valid for the host country.

Does the Commission not believe that it should draw up a Directive laying down common rules to standardize
the examinations to be taken by ‘migrant’ lawyers and establish equal criteria, applying to all the Member States,
to govern the procedures to confirm the validity of qualifications to practise in the legal profession?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission


(6 January 1998)

The Commission takes the view that 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 years’
duration (1) and the forthcoming Parliament and Council Directive to facilitate practice of the profession of
lawyer on a permanent basis in Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained contain
sufficient rules to make it easier for lawyers to set up in practice within the single market. It has no plans to
propose a directive for standardising the aptitude test which can, in principle, be imposed by Member States
under Directive 89/48/EEC. However, it will continue to ensure that the aptitude test is not used by Member
States to create an excessively large obstacle to the right of establishment of lawyers.

It should be noted that, under the new Parliament and Council Directive, the aptitude test may not be imposed as a
precondition of establishment by lawyers authorised to practise in another Member State. The Directive will
guarantee the right of establishment under the home-country professional title on the basis of the authorisation to
practise granted by the home Member State and without any verification of qualifications. It also sets out rules
governing use of the host-country professional title on the basis of professional experience acquired in the
Member State concerned.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(98/C 174/189) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3773/97


by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Council
(24 November 1997)

Subject: Illegal immigration to the EU and unemployment

Repeated public opinion polls in most EU countries clearly show that one of the most serious problems for
European citizens today is illegal immigration.

It has become particularly acute during the present decade: whereas in 1990 some 30 000 persons were prevented
from entering Europe, three years later the equivalent figure is 200 000. It is calculated that between 1991 and
1995 some three million persons entered the EU, and this has had an obvious impact as regards the rise in
unemployment for the average European.

Will the Council say what measures it intends to take to ensure that the solidarity which the Union shows towards
immigrants from third countries is matched by an expression of interest in the fate of the average European
citizen who has to shoulder the cost burden of meeting the Maastricht criteria and incurs the additional
disadvantage of being unable to find work and remaining unemployed for long periods of time?

Answer
(26 February 1998)

1. The Honourable Member well knows the importance which the Member States attach to fundamental social
rights and economic and social progress for their peoples. The Treaty of Amsterdam, as signed, places at the top
of the list of the Union’s objectives that of promoting economic and social progress and a high level of
employment, in particular through the strengthening of economic and social cohesion and through the
establishment of economic and monetary union. The EC Treaty as amended in Amsterdam will contain a new
Title on employment.
C 174/124 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 6. 98

Combating unemployment has therefore become a priority for the European Union. The Extraordinary European
Council on Employment (Luxembourg, 20 and 21 November 1997) was a reflection of that concern and
determination. It concluded that, pending ratification of the employment provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty,
and in order to mobilize all means available for combating unemployment, the method provided for in the future
Article 128 of the Treaty would be applied straight away in practice and by consensus. The European Council
therefore agreed on ‘employment guidelines’ based directly on the experience acquired in multilateral
surveillance of employment policies.

2. The European Union has also adopted measures to combat clandestine immigration, residence and work
under Title VI of the Treaty. Cooperation among the Member States in this area has led to the following
instruments being adopted:
− Council Recommendation of 30 November 1994 concerning the adoption of a standard travel document for
the expulsion of third-country nationals
(OJ C 274, 19.9.1996)
− Council Recommendation (96/C 5/01) of 22 December 1995 on harmonizing means of combating illegal
immigration and illegal employment and improving the relevant means of control
(OJ C 5, 10.1.1996)
− Council Recommendation (96/C 5/02) of 22 December 1995 on concerted action and cooperation in carrying
out expulsion measures
(OJ C 5, 10.1.1996)
− Council Recommendation of 27 September 1996 on combating the illegal employment of third-country
nationals
(OJ C 304, 14.10.1996)
− Council Decision of 16 December 1996 on monitoring the implementation of instruments adopted by the
Council concerning illegal immigration, readmission, the unlawful employment of third-country nationals
and cooperation in the implementation of expulsion orders
OJ L 342, 31.12.1996)
− Council Resolution of 4 December 1997 on measures to be adopted on the combating of marriages of
convenience
(OJ C 382, 16.12.1997).

(98/C 174/190) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3775/97


by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission
(21 November 1997)

Subject: The mentally ill

The Association of Neuropsychiatric Clinics of Athens and Attica has issued an official announcement
condemning the desperate state of health care for the mentally ill in Greece.

The complete indifference of the Greek state towards the problems facing private psychiatric clinics has obliged
the latter to postpone the admission of new patients for two weeks.

Since 1992 the daily contribution towards medical expenses provided by the state for private clinics has been
fixed at Drs. 7 000, while the equivalent sum for public psychiatric clinics is Drs. 30 000.

However, 50% of the mentally ill in Greece are being cared for in private clinics, either out of choice or because
the public sector is unable to treat all these patients who number some 9 000 people.

Given that the EU has been funding psychiatric health care in Greece for a number of years, will the Commission
say:
1. What level of funding has been allocated so far for this purpose and how much has been earmarked for the
years ahead?
2. On the basis of the principle of fair competition between the public and private sectors and the right of
patients to choose the doctor or hospital they wish, under what conditions could the private sector benefit
from EU aid to improve its infrastructures and enhance care of the mentally ill?