WRITTEN QUESTION E-2520/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 September 2001)

Subject: The exemplary value of allowing the use of local languages in education and administration as a means of preventing the emergence of nationalistic conflicts.

1. Is the Commission aware that two thirds of Europe's current 48 countries, including six of today's EU Member States: Greece, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Finland and Ireland, as well as Norway, Albania, Poland, Lithuania, Iceland, Malta, Slovenia, Ukraine, Moldova and the Czech Republic, came into being only after the Congress of Vienna attempted to fix the borders of the countries of Europe once and for all in 1815, the decisive factors being confirmation of the outcome of wars, royal marriages and treaties on the use of mountain ranges or rivers as national borders, rather than the linguistic and cultural boundaries perceived by local inhabitants?

2. Is it also aware that, in most cases, the social discontent that led to the establishment of new states and the amalgamation of existing states was caused by the fact that in a great many areas it was not the local language but a foreign language that was used by princes, officials and the military for administrative purposes and in education, resulting in a division into first-class and second-class citizens, and that this state of affairs in many cases brought forward nationalist movements and subsequently also led to violent conflicts in some cases, before administrative changes were made with the creation of federal states and the adjustment of borders?

3. Does it agree that the unrestricted use in education and administration of indigenous local or regional majority languages is the best means of preventing the emergence of nationalistic conflicts, that we could learn much to foster the peaceful and mutually respectful coexistence of neighbouring peoples in Europe from the changes that have been made in recent

decades following linguistic conflicts in Flanders, Friesland, Catalonia, the Basque Country and South Tyrol (Alto Adige), and that such positive examples are now relevant for example in the case of the southern fringes of Slovakia, the northern fringes of Serbia, central Romania and north-western Macedonia?

4. Does it regard a situation such as that now unfolding in Chroscicy (cf. Question E-2519/01) as a good example of how future EU Member States should treat the rights of peoples who constitute a majority regionally or locally and use a minority language?

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2519/01 and E-2520/01given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

In relation to the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission has no information to indicate a failure to implement Community law or a serious and persistent breach within the meaning of Article 7 (ex Article F.1) of the Treaty on European Union. The Commission refers the Honourable Member to Article 149 (ex Article 126) of the EC Treaty, according to which each Member State is responsible for the organisation of its education system and for linguistic diversity. The Commission would also point to the efforts made to promote linguistic diversity, especially through the European Year of Languages, and the Community's contribution to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity, in accordance with Article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC Treaty.

For further details, the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answer to Written Question E-2538/01 from Mr Modrow(1) on the same subject.

(1) See page 27.