WRITTEN QUESTION E-0598/00 by Hervé Novelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Refusal by France to pay housing benefit to a student on the grounds that she should have been living in France.
Date: 2000-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, competence of the Member States, education grant, equal treatment, infringement of EU law, residence, student mobility

C 303 E/204

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

of the Commission, said that any differences between document CONF 400/97 and the Treaty could be
explained by legal corrections and the final harmonisation of the texts in order to make them agree in all
the languages in which the Treaty was drawn up.

It is obvious, in fact blatantly obvious, that the differences between some of the different language versions
are not attributable solely to what Mr Prodi said in his answer. Without any doubt, the latest wording of
the French version is substantially different from the original wording, as a comparison between them
shows. The latest version is not only substantially different but it is also very restrictive. The same does not
apply to the final versions in Italian, English and Swedish, among others, which not only offer a broader
interpretation, but, more important, are closer to the meaning of the original French version.

The Union institutions must not give the impression that they can easily be swayed in their day-to-day
decisions, especially as regards issues affecting the interpretation of the EU Treaty itself and the 26 island
regions of the EU.

I suspect that the serious nature of these problems will make recourse to the courts inevitable, in order to
settle the dispute caused by what Mr Prodi in his answer calls (cid:145)legal correction and the final harmonisation
of the texts, particularly as regards their concordance in all the languages in which the Treaty was drawn
up(cid:146). It therefore seems extremely important, politically speaking, that the island regions should endeavour
to find a satisfactory solution before bringing the matter to court. The case already being brought by the
Isle of Wight in the United Kingdom sets a bad precedent if it means that the 26 island regions of the
Union will become involved in disputes of this kind or similar.

Can the Commission therefore say whether it considers the original or the final version of the French text
to be valid? Or, what amounts to the same thing, which version corresponds to what was agreed in
Amsterdam in June 1997 (cid:129) the French and Spanish versions or the versions in English, Italian and
Swedish, inter alia, which do not coincide at all?

(1) OJ C 203, 18.7.2000, p. 175.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

The text of the second paragraph of Article 158 of the EC Treaty currently in force was amended by the
Treaty of Amsterdam signed on 2 October 1997 and ratified by all the Member States. The Treaty of
Amsterdam was drawn up in twelve languages, the texts in each of these languages being equally authentic
in accordance with Article 15 thereof.

(2000/C 303 E/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0598/00

by HervØ Novelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Refusal by France to pay housing benefit to a student on the grounds that she should have been

living in France

France has refused to pay housing benefit to a French student studying in Belgium for the sole reason that
she should be resident in France in order to receive this allowance.

This provision, which discriminates significantly between students of the same nationality according to
whether they are studying in France or another EU country, is certainly not conducive to achieving a
united Europe!

24.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303 E/205

Can the Commission say whether provisions of this kind are not contrary to the various treaties and
subsequent texts which underlie European integration and determine how it works in practice?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

Under Community law as it currently stands, the Member States are free to decide on their own authority
whether their nationals who wish to pursue studies in another Member State should continue to receive
grants or other financial assistance in the host country. They are also free to provide financial assistance
and grants specifically for the purpose of enhancing student mobility. This decision is a matter for the
Member States alone.

Although the provisions of French law referred to by the Honourable Member represent an obstacle to
student mobility, they do not constitute an infringement of Community law.

(2000/C 303 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0609/00

by Jorge HernÆndez Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Raising the profile of the European School of Restoration across the Community

EU involvement in the project which has made it possible to establish a European School of Restoration in
the Albaic(cid:237)n district of Granada has acted as a catalyst enabling the said district to begin finding its place in
a new period of economic recovery which may help it to emerge from its sharp economic decline.

It seems reasonable to imagine that, besides providing economic aid to make this project reality, the
Commission could take further action and use its privileged cultural contacts to publicise the Granada
school in similar circles across Europe.

Will the Commission set out its approach to the establishment it has helped to found in Granada and say
how it intends to contribute towards ensuring that a higher profile for the European School of Restoration
in similar cultural circles across Europe brings a return on investment in the school?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The European School of Restoration in the Albaic(cid:237)n district of Granada was set up as a part of the
measures and sub-measures of the (cid:145)Albaic(cid:237)n(cid:146) urban pilot project (1), which aims to revitalise the district(cid:146)s
economy.

Urban pilot projects act as catalysts by nature, but are limited in terms of time. Once they are completed,
they no longer receive Structural Fund assistance.

Moreover, the Commission cannot ensure the profitability of the projects it has financed. Community aid
beneficiaries are therefore responsible for this and for ensuring that their operations continue to run.

With regard to the cultural sector in particular, the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention is drawn to the fact
that the Commission may grant assistance to initiatives only within the framework of and in accordance
with the conditions of the new (cid:145)Culture 2000(cid:146) programme. The first call for applications was issued
during March 2000.

(1) ERDF Decision No 97.11.29.001.