WRITTEN QUESTION E-0539/01 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) and Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Unanswered questions in connection with the ECHO affair.
Date: 2001-02-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ECHO, European Commission, Member of the European Parliament, Statute for Members of the Parliament, access to EU information, confidentiality, dissemination of EU information, interinstitutional relations (EU)

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/139

(2001/C 261 E/150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0534/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(28 February 2001)

Subject: Working languages in the European Patent Office

The European Union believes in the principle that any individual can approach the Institutions in any one
of the eleven official languages. The question of the working languages of the European Patent Office must
be seen in this light.

Does the Council acknowledge that applications for patents submitted to the European Patent Office
should be in the eleven official EU languages? If so,
in what way does the Council guarantee that
individuals and firms can submit patent applications in the eleven official EU languages? If not, why not?

Reply

(30 May 2001)

The Council has no powers in respect of the European Patent Office or the policy on language use which
the European Patent
obtains there. The Office is not a European Union institution;
Organisation, which is an intergovernmental organisation set up by the Convention on the Grant of
European Patents (European Patent Convention), an intergovernmental convention concluded in Munich in
1973.

is part of

it

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to his Question P-0762/01, which covers the
same subject matter.

(2001/C 261 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0539/01

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) and Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2001)

Subject: Unanswered questions in connection with the ECHO affair

In ground 49 of his judgment of 15 January 2001 in case T-236/00 R, the President of the Court of First
Instance expressly stressed the right of every Member of Parliament pursuant to Article 197(3) of the EC
Treaty to put questions to the Commission and to receive answers, even where these involve the
transmission of confidential information.

On 26 January 1999 the Commission did not reply to written questions E-3613/98, E-3614/98,
E-3615/98, E-3616/98, E-3617/98, E-3618/98 and E-3619/98 (1) in connection with the ECHO affair,
referring instead to the work of the Committee on Budgetary Control.

Since then these questions have lost none of their topicality. Is the Commission now prepared to answer
them point by point?

(1) OJ C 182, 28.6.1999, p. 108.

C 261 E/140

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2001)

In his order of 15 January 2001 in Case T-236/00 R Gabriele Stauner and others v. Parliament and
Commission, the President of the Court of First Instance finds in ground 49 as follows:

The fact that the framework agreement states that certain information may be provided only to the
parliamentary bodies listed at paragraph 1.4 of annex 3, namely the President of the Parliament, the
chairpersons of the parliamentary committees concerned, the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents,
does not strip individual Members of Parliament of their right to put questions to the Commission and
to receive answers from it, even where these involve the transmission of confidential information, as
was the case before the adoption of the framework agreement. It should be pointed out in this
connection that the Commission(cid:146)s discretion to decide whether to communicate confidential informa-
tion in its reply to a question put by an individual Member of Parliament under the third paragraph of
Article 197 EC and in accordance with the relevant provisions of Parliament(cid:146)s rules of procedure is not
affected even indirectly by the framework agreement.

This ground must be read in conjunction with grounds 50 and 51, which state as follows:

However, where a request for confidential information is made by Parliament, that is, by one of the
parliamentary bodies referred to in paragraph 1.4 of annex 3 to the framework agreement, the
forwarding of this information by the Commission is now governed by the provisions of
the
framework agreement. It follows that, at first sight, the framework agreement, which is confined to
regulating relations between the Commission and Parliament, has not changed the legal situation of
individual Members as regards their right under the third paragraph of Article 197 EC, does not affect
the right there established and thus has no legal effect on individual Members of Parliament.

The President of the Court of First Instance thus indicates that the framework agreement on relations
between Parliament and the Commission, approved by Parliament on 5 July 2000, does not alter the way
in which the Commission has to deal with questions put by Members of the European Parliament under
Article 197 EC. He also points out that the Commission has a degree of discretion to decide whether to
communicate confidential information in a reply to a question put under Article 197 EC.

Given these findings by the President of the Court, the Commission considers that it has nothing to add to
the replies it gave to the questions referred to by the Honourable Member or to the detailed information
that it has provided on this case on a number of occasions.

(2001/C 261 E/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0540/01

by Raimon Obiols i Germ(cid:224) (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2001)

Subject: Environmental impact assessment of the plan to route a high-speed rail line through Santa Oliva

(Tarragona, Spain)

The Commission has initiated an infringement procedure against Spain for failure to comply with the
Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
(Directive 85/337/EEC (1) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2)) in granting permission to build a railway
line linking Tarragona and Valencia.

In accordance with the aforementioned Directive, has the Commission looked into the specific case of
Santa Oliva (Tarragona), and the serious environmental impact and even greater socio-economic costs