WRITTEN QUESTION E-0186/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Unsupervised burial of radioactive materials in Albania and the southern Balkans.
Date: 2000-01-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Adriatic Sea, Albania, EU environmental policy, Western Balkans, illicit trade, marine pollution, radioactive waste

24.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303 E/155

(2000/C 303 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0175/00

by Olivier Duhamel (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: European award

When the recent storms devastated part of Western Europe, hundreds of Europeans, civilians and military
personnel, came from their countries to the disaster area to offer their skills and energies in an attempt to
repair what could be repaired and help the stricken inhabitants.

In the light of these exemplary acts of solidarity, the European Union and the Commission in particular
might think fit to establish a European award in the form of, say, a European order of merit to confer
distinction on citizens or groups of citizens who had worked in one way or another to strengthen
cohesion among the peoples of the Union countries or embody European public-spiritedness.

Could the Commission, or more specifically its President, say whether it would consider it admissible to
institute such an award for courage and solidarity in the service of the Union and, if the award were
deemed acceptable, could it swiftly determine how it might be brought into being?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2000)

Although the Commission understands and shares the Honourable Member(cid:146)s concern, it feels that such
action does not fall within its jurisdiction.

However, it could be considered when the time comes for the Union to look in depth at the question of
civil protection at European level.

(2000/C 303 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0186/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Unsupervised burial of radioactive materials in Albania and the southern Balkans

At a recent meeting in Rome between the Greek Minister of Public Order and the Italian Minister of the
Interior (in the presence of their Albanian counterpart), the parties involved expressed concern at the
possible pollution of the Adriatic from attempts to bury radioactive materials at uncontrolled sites and
discussed means of stamping out the smuggling of radioactive materials and the channelling of these
materials to Albania and the southern Balkans.

1. What information does the Commission have concerning the smuggling of radioactive materials in
Albania and other Balkan countries?

2. What measures is it taking to limit the pollution of the Adriatic from the uncontrolled dumping of
radioactive materials?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2000)

The Commission regularly receives information on cases involving illicit

1.
trafficking in nuclear
materials and radioactive substances uncovered by the authorities. The Commission is aware of the specific
problems relating to the former Yugoslavia and Albania. The Environment DG(cid:146)s Radiation Protection Unit
has therefore set up an extensive awareness-raising and training programme with the aim of helping the
Balkan states, amongst others, to establish effective measures to combat illicit nuclear traffic.

C 303 E/156

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

The Institute of Nuclear Physics, which comes under the aegis of the Albanian Academy of Sciences, has
set up two inspection teams in the customs divisions of Durres and Tirana. Their duties involve dealing
with illegal trafficking in radioactive waste.

2.

The Albanian authorities say that they are unaware of any such pollution in the Adriatic.

The negotiating directives for the future stabilisation and association agreement with the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) mention increased supervision and inspection of the transport of sensitive
products, including radioactive materials, as a potential area for cooperation.

(2000/C 303 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0188/00

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2000)

Subject: Interpretation systems with over twenty languages

How far has the Commission progressed in evaluating the feasibility of providing interpretation into over
twenty languages at EU meetings after enlargement to include the Central and Eastern European applicant
countries? Can it confirm that a significant proportion of interpretation will have to take place through a
(cid:145)pivot(cid:146) language and relayed through a second interpretation into other languages?

If so, has consideration been given to using Esperanto as the pivot language, given that:

(cid:129) it is neutral and would not thereby give preference to any linguistic group in the EU

(cid:129) it is a structured and logical language ideally suited to this purpose

(cid:129) the language can be learnt very quickly?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2000)

The Commission has since 1990 been organising regular selection tests for freelance interpreters with the
languages of the Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC). At present, a total of around 200
interpreters have been accredited for all CEEC languages. The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the
Commission(cid:146)s answer to Written Question E-2064/99 by Mr Dupuis (1) of 22 December 1999.

Further investments in training have taken place in these countries and 120 bursaries have been provided
for students of these languages in 1999 and 2000.

This policy is consistent with the respect for cultural and linguistic diversity that is a key element of the
European construction.

As to interpretation, the Joint interpretation and conference service (JICS) endeavours to ensure that
interpretation is direct from one language into any other or, if this is not possible, by relay through not
more than one intermediate stage. This intermediate stage or (cid:145)relay(cid:146)
language varies according to the
composition of the team and the languages spoken.

Although the proportion of interpretation through the existing relay system will certainly increase, there is
no reason why this should evolve into a system with the same relay or (cid:145)pivotal languages(cid:146) being used in all
meetings or indeed just a single relay language in any given meeting. Interpreters may be able to choose
between several (cid:145)relay(cid:146) languages depending on cultural affinities or (cid:145)natural relays(cid:146) based on languages
from the same language families.