WRITTEN QUESTION E-3699/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Interpretation into Swedish at Council meetings.
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EU statistics, Sweden, information profession, interpreting, official language, operation of the Institutions

C 229 E/46

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

The Commission, in collaboration with Member States and the international community, pledged funds at
the Tokyo conference of the Afghan Reconstruction Steering Group (January 21-22, 2002) for the
reconstruction of the country. The Commission’s contribution for 2002, announced at this conference, was
€ 200 million.

These funds will be directed at priorities such as support for the Interim Authority, rural redevelopment,
urban regeneration, demining, efforts to halt poppy cultivation, and support
to the media. The
Commission will propose to the Budgetary Authority that funding at a comparable level should be
approved annually for a further four years.

As indicated in response to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-0878/01 (1), the budget of the
Community does not contain provision for the funding of measures destined to protect the Afghan
cultural heritage.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001.

(2002/C 229 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3699/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Interpretation into Swedish at Council meetings

In 1999, the Swedish government wrote to the Council protesting at discrimination against the Swedish
language. In early 2000, it was found that the situation had still not improved. Interpretation to and/or
from Swedish was provided at only 20 % of Council meetings.

There are perhaps 250 Council working parties. The basic idea is that members from the 15 Member
States should be able to use their mother tongue, irrespective of whether the meetings are about tax rules
or hazardous chemicals or whatever.

This naturally requires large numbers of interpreters. The problem is, however, that investigations in 1999
and 2000 placed Swedish at the bottom of the list as far as interpretation for the various languages was
concerned.

Can the Council provide a list showing the coverage of the various languages by interpreters at the various
meetings at the Council? What has been done to boost the Council’s Swedish interpretation service?

Reply

(26 June 2002)

In 1981 the Council and the Commission set up a Joint Interpreting and Conference Service (JICS) which
organises the work of nearly a thousand interpreters each day to meet the interpretation needs of both
institutions in all the Community languages. The Permanent Representations of the countries concerned
notify the JICS of the meetings at which they require interpretation into their languages. Requests are met
insofar as the budget and availability of interpreters allow, given that there is no binding legal rule
requiring that interpretation is provided into all languages at working party level.

In 2000, aware of the increased need for interpretation into and out of Swedish with the Swedish
Presidency in prospect, the GSC expanded the number of interpreters’ booths for Swedish. The Council
invites the Honourable Member to look at the statistical tables provided by the JICS attached to this reply,
which show active and passive coverage of the various languages. They show that the percentage of active
cover of the Swedish language rose from 21 % in 1998 to 31 % in 2002, with passive cover rising from
23,9 % to 42,2 %, which calls for further improvement. The Council invites the Honourable Member to
approach the JICS directly for more detailed information.

This increase means that interpretation for Swedish can be provided at all ministerial-level meetings as for
all the other languages and at an increased number of working party meetings.

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/47

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, as indicated in its reply to Oral Question
H-0365/99, in 1999 the JICS launched ? and notified to the Swedish authorities ? a programme for
recruiting and training interpreters to work into or out of Swedish. Any improvement in the interpretation
cover for Swedish at Council meetings will clearly depend on the progress of that programme, which the
Council hopes to see achieved as soon as possible.

(2002/C 229 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3700/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Council Presidency meetings with the ERT

The European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) lobby group states that it meets (or at least tries to meet)
the government of every Member State that holds the Council Presidency.

In its answer to my question (H-0894/01 (1)), the Belgian Presidency stated that Mr Verhofstadt, the Belgian
Prime Minister, had a meeting with the ERT on 20 November 2001.

Can the Council state whether all governments that have held the Council Presidency since 1995 have had
meetings with the ERT and, if so, when?

(1) Written answer of 12 December 2001.

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Council would ask the Honourable Member to address his question directly to the Governments of the
Member States which assumed the Presidency of the EU Council in previous years.

(2002/C 229 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3704/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Development of democracy in Belarus

Following the latest presidential election in Belarus, in September 2001, the situation as regards political
democracy there can only be described as disastrous. Belarus is the only blank space on the map of Europe
where there is, from a formal point of view, no political democracy with free elections, freedom of
expression and freedom of the press.

How does the Commission assess the situation in Belarus now, and how can the European Union support
the development of the opposition’s democratic role in forming public opinion in Belarus?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2002)

The Commission is deeply concerned by recent developments in Belarus, in particular that the Government
of Belarus has shown no inclination to take into account the Union’s view on a range of issues affecting
democracy and human rights in that country.