- 1 -

Summary record

of the final Task Force Enlargement meeting

held on 30 October 2003 in Berlin

On 30 October 2003, the final meeting of the Task Force Enlargement was held in Berlin. The meeting was attended by representatives from Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy (Presidency), the Netherlands, Spain, and the European Commission. The meeting was chaired by Director General Hans Bernhard Beus.

Hans Bernhard Beus welcomed the TFE members present and outlined the purpose of the report to be drafted. He explained that the report was aimed at gradually paving the way for the changes lying ahead, at outlining potential limits without concealing views that are controversial and not unanimously shared. The purpose was to keepthe EU enlargement in sight. At the same time he thanked the participants for their valuable comments on the existing draft of the report.

Subsequently, the draft was discussed chapter by chapter. The results of the discussions can be summarised as follows:

●Ireland suggested that a “diary” be annexed to record what has happened during each presidency

●Chapter I and in particular I.1 will be elaborated in some more detail

○The graph will be adapted against the background of the comments that have been received

○A reference to the “better regulation” working group will be included, the mandate will be described in more detail

○The national contact points will be mentioned

●Under chapter II, the European Commission suggested to say a bit more about training and to phrase the text in more general terms.

○In this context, it is suggested that the DGs may request the school directors to report to them.

○Chapter II.2will be reworded so as to be more specific about the future objectives that should be pursued after the EU enlargement.

○In this context the balance with chapter II.3 is to be preserved; the “Mid Term Program” will be described more specifically.

○CIRCA will be mentioned more specifically (deletion of documents; updating of existing data; continuity, “clearing up” after the end of each presidency; what type of information is contained in CIRCA)

●Under Chapter III, the ministerial meetingswill be specifically mentioned. In the future as in the past it should be left to the presidency concerned to fix the dates and venues for the ministerial conferences because there is no common opinion of the DGs on this issue.

○Possibly list the pros and cons

○Possibly spend more time and effort on the preparation of the meetings

○Reflect the different positions of the DGs

○Highlight the problem and include a recommendation in the report

○The context on page 17 concerning the presidency will be reworded; the objective is to reduce the workload;

○The Troika’s position is to be strengthened either throughcontributions from the Member Statesto the informal EPAN network or through the secondment of staff from the Member States (the latter probably being the more feasible option);

○Continuity will be achieved by ensuring a “permanent chairmanship” in the working groups after the presidency has changed

○Should a formalisation of EPAN be recommended?

●Under chapter IV item IV.2.1 a statement will be included to the effect that working group meetings can be held in the framework of the Third Quality Conference in Rotterdam provided that this is done under the responsibility of the working groups concerned.

○It will be highlighted once again that the number of subjects on the agendashould be limited

○The awareness of the DGs should be raised to ensure that not too many questionnaires are sent out under each presidency

○Item IV.2.1 will be worded more flexibly

○The working group meeting agendas should be rid of any excessive number of informal co-operation items

●Under Chapter V, the term “language regime” will be replaced with “current practices”. The chapter will be shortened, since every EU Member State has its own “official” position on this issue and since the existing problems should not be overemphasised.

○The problems will be mentioned; the proposal will be included to wait for two or three presidencies and to take up this issue again after that period.

●Under Chapter VI sponsoring as an instrument to reduce costs is not generally excluded, but it will not be emphasised in the report.

○A sentence will be drafted and included in the report to the effect that the costs are “at the discretion of the presidency”, bearing in mind the cultural traditions of the country concerned.

○The problem of fees and funding from the Member States will be mentioned.

○Costs will be split into permanent costs and costs to be shared in the future.

As concerns the Task Force Enlargement’s future work, the following decisions were taken:

●On the basis of the discussion results, Germany will redraft the report by 10 November 2003 and subsequently distribute the report by e-mail.

●In the Executive summary the word “recommendation” will be replaced with “conclusion”. The Executive summary should include enumeration and be enriched with a bit more background information on the various issues.

●The report will contain no reference to a follow up or a potential extension of the TFE mandate.

List of participants:

Name / Country
Ida Krarup / Denmark
Hans Bernhard Beus / Germany (Chair)
Joachim Vollmuth / Germany
Manfred Späth / Germany
Andreas Haubner / Germany
Maurizio Mancini / European Commission
Andreas Löns / France
Panagiotis Passas / Greece
John O’Connell / Ireland
Laura Menicucci / Italy
Peter van der Gaast / Netherlands
Laura Pena Alberdi / Spain
Zsofia Czoma / Hungary

- 3 -