WRITTEN QUESTION E-2631/01 by Cecilia Malmström (ELDR) to the Commission. Year of Languages 2001.
Date: 2001-09-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European cultural event, European language, Ireland, Luxembourg, minority language, official language, regional language

C 93 E/170

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

(2002/C 93 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2610/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Council

(20 September 2001)

Subject: Council procedures

Will the Council please describe the procedures used in deciding upon amendments to Commission draft
directives and regulations, including provisions for votes if any?

Reply

(10 December 2001)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the general rule in this matter is contained in
Article 205(1) of the EC Treaty, which provides: ‘Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, the Council
shall act by a majority of its members.’ This implies that other provisions of the Treaty . and this is
particularly the case with provisions that confer a power of action on the Council . may specify another
voting rule in accordance with which the Council must act.

to the voting rules

As
that apply when the Council decides on amendments made by the
European Parliament at its first and second readings of a proposed legislative act in the course of the co-
decision procedure, these are laid down in Article 251 of the EC Treaty.

For the cooperation procedure the relevant article is Article 252 of the EC Treaty.

As to the voting rules applicable in the Council with regard to amendments suggested by the European
Parliament in an Opinion delivered during a consultation procedure, the Council takes its decisions in
accordance with the voting rule specified by the legal basis of the act concerned, it being understood that
in the context of
the
Commission’s wishes except on the basis of unanimity (Article 250(1) of the EC Treaty).

the EC Treaty the Council cannot amend the Commission proposal against

Voting arrangements and matters relating to the quorum and the representation of a member of the
Council are dealt with Articles 4 and 11 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure; the arrangements concerning
the written procedure are set out in Article 12.

(2002/C 93 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2631/01

by Cecilia Malmström (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 September 2001)

Subject: Year of Languages 2001

The EU and the Council of Europe have designated 2001 the European Year of Languages. It is dedicated
to all languages spoken in Europe. Projects funded by the Commission during the year will, as well as the
11 official languages of the EU, also cover Icelandic and Norwegian, other national languages such as Irish
and Letzeburgesch, many regional and minority languages, classical languages and sign languages.

However, for some reason, there is no funding for Esperanto. Esperanto was devised in 1887 with a view
to creating a new artificial common language in addition to all other languages. As nobody would have
Esperanto as his mother tongue, everybody would start on the same footing. Hundreds of thousands of
people in Europe speak Esperanto today.

Why is Esperanto not included in the Year of Languages 2001?

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/171

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2001)

Decision No 1934/2000/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 on the European Year of
Languages 2001 (1) stated that the measures envisaged ‘will cover the official languages of the Community,
together with Irish, Letzeburgesch, and other languages in line with those identified by the Member States
for the purposes of implementing this Decision.’ In practice, no Member State imposed any limits on the
languages considered eligible for support in the context of this initiative. Projects involving esperanto or
other artificial languages were evaluated on the same basis as other projects. Very few applications of this
kind were received and none was among those ultimately selected for financing.

(1) OJ L 232, 14.9.2000.

(2002/C 93 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2633/01

by Gian Gobbo (TDI) to the Council

(20 September 2001)

Subject: Displays of hostility to the West in Turkey

As a result of the recent tragic terrorist attacks against the United States, the European Union is having to
reconsider its foreign policy and, in particular, its relations with the Islamic world which is increasingly
influenced by a markedly anti-Western public opinion.

One significant illustration of this is the whistling which prevented the minute’s silence in memory of the
victims of the New York attack from taking place at the Galatasaray-Lazio football match on Tuesday
11 September in Istanbul. This regrettable incident is symptomatic of the fact that European values and
sentiments are alien to a large proportion of Turkish society and highlights the absurdity of Turkey’s
proposed accession to the European Union.

Does the Council not consider that it should ask the Turkish authorities to issue an explicit condemnation
of such displays of hostility to the West?

Reply

(10 December 2001)

The disruption of the minute’s silence in memory of the victims of the New York attack at the Galatasaray-
Lazio football match on 11 September was indeed a regrettable incident. It is clear, however that this
attitude is not shared by the Turkish Government, which unreservedly joined in the indignation and
solidarity expressed by the international community in the wake of the events of 11 September. The
Council rejects the conclusions that the Honourable Member seems to be drawing.

(2002/C 93 E/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2654/01

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 September 2001)

Subject: Rice surpluses

The Management Committee for Cereals and Rice in Brussels has issued instructions whereby supplies of
paddy rice from the 97 and 98 marketing years stored in the European Community are to be used as
animal feed.

This concerns around 50 000 tonnes of paddy rice, equivalent to 30 000 tonnes of white rice, which
would be enough to feed 2-3 million people for a whole year.

Will the Commission explain the reasons for this decision, given that it is likely to leave many baffled in
view of the efforts being made to combat hunger in the world?