You are on page 1of 2

12.6.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 137 E/65

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2264/02 and E-2265/02
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

The Commission is not collecting any data about the status and number of gamekeepers and accredited
gamekeepers, as these are elements of regional or national forest and countryside policies, which are under
the competence of the Member States.

The question of the possible introduction of harmonisation measures for gamekeepers by the Commission
is related to the mutual recognition of diplomas, which concerns essentially two directives.

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 years’
duration (1). This Directive has been complemented by Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 for
diplomas of a shorter duration than three years (2). The same principles apply for both of the Directives.
A person who is fully qualified to exercise a profession in one Member State should in principle be
allowed to exercise the profession in another Member State.

The two directives refer to regulated professions; that is to say where there is a legal prerequisite in the
national legislation to possess a diploma in order to have access to the profession. The profession of
gamekeeper seems generally not to be a regulated profession in the Member States. Also, it should be
noted that the Directives only apply to professional activities that are remunerated in some way.

The Commission is not aware of any problems concerning the recognition of the professional
qualifications of gamekeeper having arisen. It therefore has for the time being no intention to harmonise
the rules in this area. Every Member State is free to regulate professions in its own territory.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.


(2) 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, OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(2003/C 137 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2268/02


by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2002)

Subject: European Public Prosecutor and enlargement

How does the Commission envisage the role of the European Public Prosecutor after the enlargement of
the EU?

Could the Commission please comment on the state of the legal systems in the enlargement countries and
if their systems are able to cope with the protection of the Community’s financial interests?

Are the accession states’ legal systems compatible with the proposal for a European Public Prosecutor?

Could the Commission please comment on how it will reconcile up to 10 new legal systems in addition to
the 17 different legal systems currently in use in the EU? (Ex. Judicial powers of investigating magistrates
and legal rights of the accused)

What problems does the Commission foresee with the implementation and administration of the European
Public Prosecutor’s office in the enlargement countries?

How will the Commission overcome these difficulties?


C 137 E/66 Official Journal of the European Union EN 12.6.2003

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The Green Paper on criminal-law protection of the financial interests of the Community and the
establishment of a European Prosecutor (1) stated that of all the Community’s relations with third countries,
those with the countries that have applied for accession are of particular importance. They receive and will
continue to receive significant levels of aid from the Community budget. The European Public Prosecutor
(EPP) would be established most likely after accession. Once established, it would operate in the same way
in all Member States of an enlarged Union.

In the context of both its pre-accession strategy and the accession negotiations, the Commission closely
monitors the progress made by candidate countries with regard to legal approximation and their
implementation capacity. The acquis on the protection of the Community’s financial interests is fully
covered by these negotiations, especially those on Chapters 24 (Justice and Home Affairs) and 28 (Financial
control). Negotiations under both Chapter 24 and 28 have been provisionally closed with ten candidate
countries. They are continuing with Bulgaria and Romania. No transitional periods have been requested
under both chapters.

The Commission has co-financed a study on this matter (Study on criminal and administrative penalties,
recovery, denunciation and the Corpus juris in the applicant countries, general report of Ch. Van den
Wyngaert, 2001). Experts from the applicant countries have been involved in the preparation of the
report. The study generally concludes that there appears to be no insurmountable problems for the
integration of the Corpus Juris by the candidate countries, including the establishment of a EPP. A detailed
report on each candidate country, which includes an explanation of the specificity of the legal system of
each country, can be found in the study.

One of the objectives of the European Prosecutor is to resolve problems that occur as a result of the
compartimentalisation of different legal systems. The aim of the EPP is to create a single investigation
and prosecution area that dovetails with the 17 national legal systems of the current Union. Indeed,
enlargement makes the Commission’s proposals even more necessary. The problems linked to the current
fragmentation of criminal law-enforcement will increase with enlargement. Under the proposals the EPP
would throughout the Union direct investigations and prosecutions aimed at protecting the Community’s
financial interests; the protection of the rights of defendants, as well as trials, would remain with national
courts.

There are no specific problems regarding the implementation and the administration of a European Public
Prosecutor in the candidate countries. Indeed, any problems that may arise in the candidate countries in
this framework will not differ from those that the current Member States might encounter.

In this context, the Commission wishes to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that the
Commission supports the establishment of an anti-fraud co-ordination structure or service in each
candidate country, which will be responsible for the co-ordination of all legislative, administrative and
operational aspects of the protection of the Communities’ financial interests. Such a service or structure
will co-operate closely with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and eventually the European Public
Prosecutor. It is important to note that such a structure or service already exists in several Member States
and candidate countries.

(1) COM(2001) 715 final.

(2003/C 137 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2271/02


by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2002)

Subject: The cost of bank transfers

There is considerable concern about the cost of bank transfers within the Eurozone, with banks in different
countries frequently charging large commissions at both ends. Can the Commission confirm that this
practice is illegal, and, if so, explain why the Commission has not taken legal proceedings to prevent it?