although such a distinction exists in practice. Given the forthcoming eastward enlargement of the EU and
the consequent increase in the number of official languages, it would be appropriate for there to be auniform and binding requirement concerning the working languages to be used in all European institutionsand bodies.
It is essential that any ruling on working languages in EU institutions and bodies allow for the equal use of
German alongside English and French.
Of the EUs total population of over 370 million, more than 90 million, i.e. one in four EU citizens, have
German as their mother tongue.
In 1997 Germany accounted for 62 % of net payments from the EU budget (Austria 4 %).
In most Central and Eastern European countries German leads English as the most important foreign
language and so performs an important bridging function in the accession process.
When will the Commission be putting forward a proposal for the binding adoption of English, French and
German as the working languages of the European institutions and bodies in place of the current, non-uniform system?
(1) OJ 17, 6.10.1958, p. 385.
Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1445/99 and P-1495/99
given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission
(15 October 1999)
The Commission would draw the Honourable Members attention to the fact that under Article 290 of the
EC Treaty (former Article 217) the rules governing the languages of the Community institutions are to bedetermined by the Council, acting unanimously. The Treaty does not provide for Commission proposalson this matter.
(2000/C 27 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1446/99
by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(1 September 1999)
Subject: Subsidised relocation of Akcros Chemicals B.V. from Roermond to Greiz
1. Is the Commission aware that Akcros Chemicals B.V. (formerly Haagen Chemie, owned by AKZO
Nobel Chemicals) which produces lead and metal stearates and non-vinyl semi-finished products for theplastics industry intends to close its establishment in Roermond (Limburg, Netherlands) with 1 200workers instead of carrying out its original intention of transferring production to the Limax site (alsoowned by Akcros) in Roermond-East, which is due to be developed?
2. Is the Commission also aware that the reason given by AKZO Nobel for this closure in Roermond 
a town with a high level of unemployment by Dutch standards  is an investment subsidy of 35 % whichit is being given to transfer non-vinyl production to Greiz (Thuringia, Germany) while the production oflead stearates is to be transferred to Düren (North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany)?
3. Can the Commission say whether this transfer is being wholly or partially funded by European Union
money? If so, why? How does the expected growth in the number of jobs in Greiz match up to theexpected job losses in Roermond? What are the costs of each new job?
4. Does the Commission think it right that promoting employment in an area with a shortage of jobs
should be carried out by using public subsidies to take jobs away from another area where there is also ashortage? If not, what is the Commission intending to do to stop firms unnecessary juggling with jobs andthe loss of employment?C 27 E/72 EN 29.1.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities