EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/547

(2004/C 84 E/0624)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0199/04

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject: Ethnic census

The European Commission has launched Community infringements proceedings against the Italian State with regard to the application, in the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, of rules relating to the ethnic census that are considered to conflict with the Treaty on European Union. The grounds for these proceedings include serious violations of the privacy of citizens, who are obliged to declare, alongside their names, the ethnic group to which they belong and to supply other cultural and political information relating to their persons. The compulsory nature of this declaration is also considered to entail violations of the principles of non-discrimination and equal opportunities, proclaimed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, for citizens belonging to ethnic groups and different cultures or religions and speaking different languages.

In the light of the above and since the whole process of integration and cohesion in the European Union is based on the principle of mutual dialogue and the dismantling of differences and that formal notice was served to the Italian State on 10 December 2003, with a hearing on 15 January 2004, can the Commission state:

1. What violations of the Treaty provide the grounds for the Community infringement proceedings?

2. Why the proceedings were suspended and postponed for three months, who requested this suspension and on what grounds?

3. Whether it is true that Austria exerted significant pressure on the Commission, via the political apparatus and diplomatic sources, to secure that suspension?

4. How it views the anti-historical presumption of a tutelary role for Austria in Alto Adige/South Tyrol (Italian territory) based on the obsolete Treaty of Paris?

5. Whether it can foresee a reversal of the decision to postpone proceedings, with these continuing in accordance with the time limits and procedures laid down, which are equitable to all?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Commission is analysing the legislation relating to the linguistic census of the Province of Bolzano on the basis of Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1), in particular Articles 6.1.c and 8 thereof. Article 6.1.c states that: ‘Member States shall provide that personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed’. Article 8 offers enhanced protection to sensitive data such as data revealing ethnic origin. The Directive aims to ensure the functioning of an internal market in accordance with the EC Treaty, in particular Article 49 thereof, providing for the free flow of personal data between Member States while at the same time safeguarding the fundamental right to privacy. However, it should be noted that the Commission has not yet taken any decision on an infringement procedure concerning the compatibility of the rules on the linguistic census with the provisions mentioned above.

The case is being dealt with under the normal Commission proceedings rules currently applicable to the handling of complaints. In the investigation of complaints and established infringements, sincere co-operation and a climate of mutual confidence between the Commission and the Member State concerned are required to allow both parties to engage in appropriate discussions in search of a Community-compatible solution. With this objective in view, the Commission has raised with the competent authorities, in this case the Italian authorities, the different issues that might constitute an eventual breach of the above-mentioned provisions, and contacts are still on-going.

The Commission has nothing to state on the Treaty of Paris, the provisions of which are not subject to scrutiny in this case.

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.