WRITTEN QUESTION E-1555/00 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Freedom of religion in Macedonia.
Date: 2000-05-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: North Macedonia, common foreign and security policy, educational institution, freedom of religious beliefs

C 72 E/76

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

Does the Commission not believe that it would be appropriate to use an in-depth knowledge of economic
theory as a basis before proposing measures to correct income in real terms, such as PPPs?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 114.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2000)

The Honourable Member seems to allude to the distinction between changes in price level (i.e. inflation),
on the one hand, and changes in relative prices, on the other hand. The first is mainly a consequence of
macroeconomic policies, in particular monetary policy, and the latter is an outcome of demand and supply
conditions of markets. Within a monetary union, differences in inflation rates are usually low because of a
single monetary policy and a co-ordinated economic policy, but differences in relative prices can still be
considerable due to transaction costs which prevent arbitrage, in particular for non-traded goods. There-
fore, in a monetary union, the main differences in purchasing power of money (PPPs) between countries
arise from different relative prices.

(2001/C 72 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1555/00

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Freedom of religion in Macedonia

Can the Commission confirm that the constitutional court in Macedonia has banned prayers from being
said in schools in Macedonia?

Can the Commission explain the reasons for this ban?

Does the Commission consider that this ban is in line with the European principle of freedom of religion?

What possibilities are open to the Commission to bring about discussion of this ban in Macedonia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2000)

The Commission can confirm that the Constitutional Court of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
has annulled by its decision No U.br. 195/99 (published in the official Gazette of the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia No 36/2000 of 12 May 2000), an Act of the Ministry of Education establishing a
prayer at the occasion of the yearly inaugural classes in elementary and secondary schools of the school
year 1999/2000.

The ruling of the Constitutional Court was based, in substance, on Article 19 of the Constitution of the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia that reads that (cid:145)The Macedonian Orthodox Church and other
religious communities and groups are separate from the state and equal before the law(cid:146). This principle of
separation between religions and the state was the main reason behind the ruling of the Court.

This ruling is in line with the European principle of freedom of religion (as established, inter alia, in
Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms),
which is guaranteed in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Article 9 of the constitution of the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia reads that (cid:145)Citizens of the Republic of Macedonia are equal in
their freedoms and rights, regardless of sex, race, colour of skin, national and social origin, political and
religious beliefs, property and social status(cid:146), and Article 19 that (cid:145)The freedom of religious confession is

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/77

guaranteed. The right to express one(cid:146)s faith freely and publicly, individually or with others is guaranteed
[(cid:133).](cid:146). The decisions of the Constitutional Court are final and executive.

The Commission does not deem relevant, therefore, to start discussion with the Government of the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on a ruling of its Constitutional Court.

(2001/C 72 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1565/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(24 May 2000)

Subject: Government aid for audiovisual productions

The Commission wants to confine government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total budget.
This proposal is the first occasion that the Commission has applied the competition rules in full in the area
of cultural policy.

This action will have a pernicious effect on audiovisual initiatives in small and medium-sized Member
States and cultural areas. They have more limited sources of finance than the large Member States and
cultural areas. Moreover, a relative yardstick (in this case the 50 % rule), as used by the Commission, gives
a distorted picture of the amounts actually invested.

Does the Council agree with the Commission(cid:146)s proposal to limit government aid for audiovisual

1.
productions to half the total budget? If so, why?

Does the Council acknowledge that this proposal is the first occasion that the Commission has
in the area of cultural policy? If no, how then should limiting

2.
applied the competition rules in full
government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total budget be interpreted?

3.
In the Councils opinion, can limiting government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total
budget be reconciled with the Commission(cid:146)s objective of supporting the development of small and
medium-sized Member States and cultural areas? If so, in what way does the Council think that limiting
government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total budget will contribute to developing small
and medium-sized Member states and cultural areas?

the Council oppose the Commission(cid:146)s proposal

4. Will
to limit government aid for audiovisual
productions to half the total budget in view of the detrimental effect this will have on audiovisual
initiatives in small and medium-sized Member states and cultural areas? If not, why not, and what are the
Council(cid:146)s reasons for supporting the Commission(cid:146)s proposal?

Reply

(26 September 2000)

The Council has not received any proposal from the Commission concerning the matter raised by the
Honourable Parliamentarian. As the Honourable Parliamentarian certainly is aware, in accordance with the
Treaty, the Council does not act in this matter unless it receives a proposal from the Commission
(Article 89 ECT). The Council also may, on application by a Member State, decide that a specific aid
granted by that State shall be considered to be compatible with the common market if such a decision is
justified by exceptional circumstances (article 88, paragraph 2, 3d subparagraph ECT). No such application
has been received by the Council concerning the