WRITTEN QUESTION E-2529/01 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Respect for all official Community languages.
Date: 2001-09-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union, enlargement of the Union, linguistic discrimination, official language

C 93 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

Acquisition of citizenship is a different process to migration. Persons acquiring citizenship are often those
who migrated, or whose ancestors migrated, a number of years previously. A difference between the
number of migrants (of Greek or non-Greek descent) and the number acquiring citizenship in any
particular period is therefore to be expected.

the Union,

The Communications on a Community immigration policy (1) and a common asylum procedure and
3.
for persons granted asylum (2) emphasise that more
a uniform status, valid throughout
information is needed about migration flows and patterns of migration into and out the Union. In May
2001 the Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted Conclusions on statistics that lay down the principles
and objectives for future work to improve the exchange of statistics on asylum and migration and a
common analysis. The Conclusions inter alia provide that relevant Community statistics should be made
publicly available and an annual public report, including an analysis of trends and indicators, be drawn up.
The Conclusions invite the Commission to submit a proposal
for a comprehensive and coherent
framework for future action. Moreover, the Commisssion is going to set up a European Migration Virtual
Observatory, that is a virtual network consisting of a network of national points connected with each
other and linked with a main website, which will collect data on migration.

The Commission has regularly collected data from Member States on asylum and illegal migration
4.
but so far Member States have been reluctant to allow some of these data to be made widely available.
Community statistics are in the public domain, except for statistical data which allows individuals to be
identified, either directly or indirectly, thereby disclosing information about identifiable individuals. While
the Council Conclusions of May 2001 underline that the approach to statistics in the field of asylum and
migration should follow these rules, they also recognise that due consideration shall have to be given to
demonstrable sensitivity concerns. The Commission is currently consulting Member States to assess to
what extent data on illegal immigration and entry will have to be considered as such and would remain
subject to restrictions on publication.

As regards the measures to enforce rules on the basis of the Union/Schengen acquis it has to be stated that
the Greek authorities are responsible to ensure compliance with the existing common rules, in particular
on visa issuance and border management. Nevertheless,
the Commission understands that proper
enforcement of existing rules is a principal requirement not only for safeguarding the common external
borders, but also for the consideration of the further development of the common immigration policy, in
particular relating to the fight against illegal immigration. It is, therefore, necessary to reflect on future
monitoring efforts, e.g. by joint screenings of consular posts or the external border. This issue will be 6
inter alia 6 addressed in the Communication on a Common Endeavour Preventing and Fighting Against
Illegal Immigration, which will be released by the Commission in the near future.

(1) COM(2001) 387 final.
(2) COM(2000) 755 final.

(2002/C 93 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2529/01

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2001)

Subject: Respect for all official Community languages

Enlargement of the Union has raised questions about the possibility of using the 11 official languages plus
the languages of the countries which are to join the Union. The arguments focus on the financial burden
arising from the increase in the number of official languages and there is already talk of establishing
‘working languages’ to ‘facilitate’ the work of the Community Institutions.

Great care has been taken to cover up the fact that such an arrangement would be a terrible setback to the
cultural wealth of Europe and no mention has been made of other instances in which Community funds
have really been squandered, such as the new framework programme for the creation of a European

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/153

research area, in which millions of euro have been spent on drawing up a large number of reports of
questionable usefulness, instead of on carrying out practical research projects (as done until recently under
the 5th framework programme) to reduce the gap between Europe and the USA and Japan.

the tactic of marginalising the so-called ‘minor languages’

is spreading, even to the
Furthermore,
recruitment procedures for the Community’s bureaucracy, as evidenced by the recent advertisement by the
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training announcing its intention to recruit a
secretary with ‘an excellent knowledge of English’ and only ‘a good knowledge of Greek’, when the nature
of the Centre’s duties requires continuous collaboration with the Greek authorities and the exchange of
official documents in Greek.

Will the Commission say to what extent the establishment of ‘working languages’ is consistent with the
languages of the Union compatible with
Union Treaties? Is abolishing the use of any of the official
Community legislation? Why do the Union’s decentralised agencies take a demeaning view of the so-called
‘minor languages’? In what way could it remedy the unacceptable situation whereby only five official
languages are used at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, founded and funded by the EU
in Alicante, Spain, which receives thousands of requests each year from members of the public throughout
Europe, many of whom are compelled to use a language other than their mother tongue without the
appropriate means of expression and at additional cost (translation)?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2001)

Article 290 of the EC Treaty states that the rules governing the languages of the institutions of the
It adopted Regulation No 1/1958
Community are determined by the Council acting unanimously.
determining the languages to be used by the Community (1), which was amended as each new Member
State joined the Community. Under Article 6 of that Regulation the institutions of the Community can
stipulate which of the languages are to be used in specific cases for the sake of efficient internal operation,
in compliance naturally with the other provisions of the Regulation. It goes without saying that the acts
finally adopted are routinely published in all official languages in accordance with Council Regulation No
1/1958. Thus it cannot be claimed that the Commission has "dropped" the use of certain languages.
Decentralised Community bodies do not neglect the "minor languages"; however, where allowed by the
Council regulations setting them up, these bodies can use a reduced number of languages in the interest of
efficiency. A vacancy notice requiring an official to have a knowledge of one or more languages is standard
practice in the institutions depending on the tasks set for the official selected. Apart from during the
transitional periods following accession by various countries in line with specific regulations, it would,
however, be inadmissible to publish vacancy notices for a specific nationality.

Concerning the use of languages at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), it should
be noted that it is possible to apply for a Community trade mark registration in any of the official
Community languages. The applicant must however in his application indicate a second language, which
has to be one of the five working languages of the Office, the use of which he accepts as a possible
language of proceedings for opposition, revocation or invalidity proceedings. The Court of First Instance
found in its ruling in the KIK-case (2), that the language regime of OHIM is not in contradiction with the
EC Treaty. Furthermore, the Court found that the Council, while deciding the language regime for OHIM,
must be considered to have made ‘an appropriate and proportionate choice’ in pursuing the objective of
the proceedings where parties, who do not share the same language
determining the language of
preference, fail to agree.

Concerning the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), it is to be noted
that the primary need for a newly recruited employee at any level is to be able to communicate and work
in a multinational environment where colleagues come from many different Member States. A very good
knowledge of the language of the hosting Member State is, of course, important, and most Community
agencies have adopted specific measures to encourage and promote such learning. Each and everyone in
such an institution masters a number of other languages; English is one of the languages allowing a proper
accomplishment of tasks and may be, as other languages in different jobs, necessary for a specific position.

C 93 E/154

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

The sixth research framework programme for the year 2002-2006 mentioned by the Honourable Member
has yet to be adopted by the Parliament and Council. The Commission’s proposal aims to improve the
European science base and competitiveness through concrete collaborative research activities, focused on
tangible results, even more than is the case with the current Framework Programme, thanks to the strong
focus on selected research priorities and the use of more effective implementation instruments.

(1) OJ 17, 6.10.1958.
(2) Case T 120/99 of 12 July 2001.

(2002/C 93 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2537/01

by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission

(13 September 2001)

Subject: The number of Italian directors-general at the Commission

What binding rules does the Commission intend to adopt in respect of the appointment of directors-
general, which, according to existing practice, should reflect the geographical balance within the EU?

When the most recent appointments were made, France was given seven directors-general and the United
Kingdom six, while Italy 6 a country of the same importance, the same population and the same number
of representatives within the EU 6 was given only two, together with four deputy directors-general.

How does the Commission explain this conspicuous geographical imbalance?

How does it intend to ensure that such posts are allocated in a more equitable manner, showing due
respect for Italy’s rights as a major Member State?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2001)

Appointments to senior positions in the Commission are not made in the manner inferred in the
Honourable Member’s question. No Member State is ‘given’ a Director Generalship or a Deputy Director
Generalship.

The Commission fills its vacant posts in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Staff Regulations,
Article 27 of which provides that ‘recruitment shall be directed to securing for the institution the services
of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, recruited on the broadest possible
geographical basis (…)’ and that ‘no posts shall be reserved for nationals of any specific Member State’.

Accordingly, no nationality is entitled to a fixed quota of posts at any level whatsoever. However, to reflect
the essential and valuable cultural diversity of the Union, the Commission aims to maintain a broad
geographical balance in order to ensure the presence of all Member State nationalities at all levels within
the Institution.

In 1999, the Commission reviewed the procedures for appointing senior staff with a view to selecting, on
the basis of transparent procedures, those candidates who show themselves to be the best qualified for the
post to which an appointment is being made. In the decisions which it adopted at its first meeting, held on
18 September 1999, the Commission emphasised inter alia that ‘the nationality of the outgoing post-
holder should not be a factor in the appointment of the new occupant of the post’. It also adopted rules of
conduct for appointments to posts in grades A1 and A2,
improving the procedures followed by the
Consultative Committee on Appointments (CCA). This Committee is responsible for the technical selection
procedure, which is based on the principle of excellence, its role being to make available to the Appointing
Authority (the Commission) a list of the candidates who, on the strength of their merits, are qualified to fill
the published post. The Appointing Authority, after comparing the respective merits of the qualified
candidates, then makes a selection, complying with the principle that officials of all ranks should be
recruited on the broadest possible geographical basis, and adhering to a policy of equal opportunities for
men and women, as enshrined in the Amsterdam Treaty.