WRITTEN QUESTION E-2520/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. The exemplary value of allowing the use of local languages in education and administration as a means of preventing the emergence of nationalistic conflicts..
Date: 2001-09-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, Saxony, enlargement of the Union, language teaching, linguistic discrimination, linguistic group, rights of minorities

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/25

(2002/C 147 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2519/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 September 2001)

Subject: The battle in Chroscicy to maintain the use of Sorbian in education and administration for the

Sorbian population which has traditionally lived in Upper Lusatia, Saxony

Is the Commission aware that in the village of Chroscicy (Crostwitz), situated between the towns of
1.
Budyšin (Bautzen), Kamjenc (Kamenz) and Wojerecy (Hoyerswerda),
in the Dresden district of Saxony,
90 % of the population have always spoken Sorbian, a Slavonic language, but that, just as happened earlier
in the northern part of the Sorbian language area around Chósebuz (Cottbus)
the
provision of secondary education in Sorbian is declining or even disappearing completely?

in Brandenburg,

2.
Is the Commission also aware that this state of affairs has, since 8 August 2001, led not only to daily
demonstrations featuring the blue, white and red Sorbian flag, the singing of the Sorbian national anthem
and the wearing of traditional costumes, but also to civil disobedience, with pupils being taken away from
official schools so that they can be taught by retired Sorbian-speaking teachers?

3. What view does the Commission take of the fact that, instead of efforts being made to safeguard and
maintain the rights of a traditional linguistic minority in the face of falling numbers of school-age children,
pupils are being forced to continue their education at German-speaking schools, that school absenteeism is
punished and that the government of Saxony takes no account of the demands made by Domovina, the
Sorbian political and cultural umbrella organisation?

In the case of the 60 000 Sorbians, what can the Commission do to help avoid polarisation in their
4.
relations with the German-speaking population group, which dominates the fields of education and
administration, and what can it do to eliminate sources of ethnic conflicts within EU Member States
generally?

(2002/C 147 E/024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2520/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 September 2001)

Subject: The exemplary value of allowing the use of local languages in education and administration as a

means of preventing the emergence of nationalistic conflicts.

1.
Is the Commission aware that two thirds of Europe’s current 48 countries, including six of today’s EU
Member States: Greece, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Finland and Ireland, as well as Norway, Albania, Poland,
Lithuania, Iceland, Malta, Slovenia, Ukraine, Moldova and the Czech Republic, came into being only after
the Congress of Vienna attempted to fix the borders of the countries of Europe once and for all in 1815,
the decisive factors being confirmation of the outcome of wars, royal marriages and treaties on the use of
mountain ranges or rivers as national borders, rather than the linguistic and cultural boundaries perceived
by local inhabitants?

2.
Is it also aware that, in most cases, the social discontent that led to the establishment of new states
and the amalgamation of existing states was caused by the fact that in a great many areas it was not the
local language but a ‘foreign’ language that was used by princes, officials and the military for administrative
purposes and in education, resulting in a division into first-class and second-class citizens, and that this
state of affairs in many cases brought forward nationalist movements and subsequently also led to violent
conflicts in some cases, before administrative changes were made with the creation of federal states and the
adjustment of borders?

3.
Does it agree that the unrestricted use in education and administration of indigenous local or
regional majority languages is the best means of preventing the emergence of nationalistic conflicts, that
we could learn much to foster the peaceful and mutually respectful coexistence of neighbouring peoples in
Europe from the changes that have been made in recent decades following linguistic conflicts in Flanders,

C 147 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

Friesland, Catalonia, the Basque Country and South Tyrol (Alto Adige), and that such positive examples are
now relevant for example in the case of the southern fringes of Slovakia, the northern fringes of Serbia,
central Romania and north-western Macedonia?

4.
Does it regard a situation such as that now unfolding in Chroscicy (cf. Question E-2519/01) as a
good example of how future EU Member States should treat the rights of peoples who constitute a
majority regionally or locally and use a minority language?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2519/01 and E-2520/01
given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

In relation to the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission has no information to
indicate a failure to implement Community law or a serious and persistent breach within the meaning of
Article 7 (ex Article F.1) of the Treaty on European Union. The Commission refers the Honourable
Member to Article 149 (ex Article 126) of the EC Treaty, according to which each Member State is
responsible for the organisation of its education system and for linguistic diversity. The Commission would
also point to the efforts made to promote linguistic diversity, especially through the European Year of
Languages, and the Community’s contribution to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while
respecting their national and regional diversity, in accordance with Article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC
Treaty.

For further details, the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s answer to Written Question
E-2538/01 from Mr Modrow (1) on the same subject.

(1) See page 27.

(2002/C 147 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2535/01

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Submission of the results of analyses concerning adulterated butter

Until mid-2000, members of the Italian mafia were involved in the large-scale adulteration of butter,
adding animal and vegetable fats and chemical substances to it before marketing it through Belgian,
German, French and Italian firms. It is believed that a total of 100 000 tonnes of adulterated butter was
produced and that it was mainly used in bakery products. Following the discovery of the fraud, some
200 tonnes of what was left of the adulterated butter was seized in Belgium, France and Italy. The Member
State concerned were called upon to carry out chemical analyses in order to clarify whether there were any
risks to health.

In a letter of 17 August 2001, the German Minister for Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture
informed me that the results of the analyses Belgium, France and Italy had been asked to carry out had not
yet been presented to the Standing Veterinary Committee and could not be inspected or evaluated by the
Federal Government.

Will the Commission state why these findings have still not been submitted?

Will it say what steps it has taken, or proposes to take, in order to make the Member States concerned
submit the results of the analyses?

Will it indicate the findings on which it was actually basing itself when, in the 2000 annual report on the
fight against fraud (1), it wrote that, ‘so far, the analyses conducted by the experts on the seized goods have
not established any direct hazard for the consumers’ health’?

Will it provide the names and indicate the official positions of the experts it referred to and present copies
of the results of the analyses it mentioned?

(1) COM(2001) 255, p. 25.