WRITTEN QUESTION E-0076/02 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Statements by the Commission President in Madrid.
Date: 2002-01-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU policy, European integration, President of the Commission, regional and local authorities, regional integration

C 172 E/138

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

As far as SCIC is aware, there are no professionally qualified Esperanto interpreters and educational
institutions in Member States, on which SCIC relies for the provision of courses in interpretation, are
unlikely to include Esperanto among the languages they provide. For logistical and financial reasons SCIC
itself is not in a position to launch a training programme in Esperanto for existing and future interpreters.
Training an interpreter to the required standard in an official language for passive use takes three to four
years of part-time study and costs about € 70 000.

An additional consideration is that about half of the interpretation provided by the Commission is supplied
by freelance interpreters.
if not impossible, to ensure that they learnt
Esperanto, especially as it would be of little practical value for them elsewhere.

It would clearly be difficult,

Furthermore, there is no evidence that using Esperanto as a relay language would lead to an improvement
in the overall quality of interpretation. On the contrary, recourse to a language that is not used in everyday
life would run the risk of not being able to convey the full range of messages and ideas communicated
during meetings.

In line with
There is a shortage of interpreters in many existing and future Community languages.
Commission policy of concentrating resources on core activities, SCIC’s immediate priority is to ensure
that an adequate number of interpreters is available in these languages, particularly those of the candidate
countries and has initiated a series of action plans committed to achieving this goal.

This position does not of course detract from the interest Esperanto may represent for purposes other than
interpretation.

(2002/C 172 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0076/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 January 2002)

Subject: Statements by the Commission President in Madrid

The Spanish newspapers have recently published such headlines as ‘Prodi defends Aznar’s right to deny the
regions representation in Europe’ and ‘Prodi supports the Government and says the regions will not be
represented in the EU’, in the wake of President Prodi’s reported position on the current controversy within
the Spanish state, where the central government, with the Prime Minister at the forefront, is refusing the
regions the right to be represented at meetings of the Council of Ministers, even though this right is laid
down in the Treaty of Amsterdam and is recognised in practice by other Member States.

Has Mr Prodi taken such a position in reality? If so, on what grounds is he entering a controversy in which
the nationalities and regions of the Spanish state are simply defending their constitutional rights 6 rights
which are in any case validated by the EU Treaties?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The Commission recalls that the President of the Commission committed himself to involve more the
regional and local
in EU policy shaping and implementation, as stated in the White Paper on
Governance (1). Furthermore, the President underlined that the participation of Members of the Committee
of Regions in the Convention will allow them to contribute to the debate on the future of Europe.

level,

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/139

Finally, the Commission recalls that Article 203 of the EC Treaty states that the Council shall consist of a
representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit the Government of that
Member State. Subject to this provision, it is for each Member State to decide on its representation at
Council meetings, which differs from one Member State to another and on which the Community can not
intervene.

(1) OJ C 287, 12.10.2001.

(2002/C 172 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0078/02

by Ulrich Stockmann (PSE) to the Commission

(25 January 2002)

Subject: Possible closure of the Ammendorf/Halle (Saale) railway carriage factory

On 12 November 2001 the Canadian rail vehicle manufacturer Bombardier announced the closure of the
Ammendorf railway carriage factory in Halle (Saale) in Saxon-Anhalt, threatening the loss of almost 1000
jobs.

The background is that after German reunification the successor to ‘Treuhand’, BVS, after various
unsuccessful attempts at privatisation, sold ‘Deutsche Waggonbau AG’ which included the Ammendorf
works, to a US investment company, which two years later sold Deutsche Waggonbau AG to the Canadian
rail vehicle company Bombardier.

Was any state aid approved for the Ammendorf works, and if so, how much?

Did the Ammendorf works receive financial support from European (aid) programmes, and if so, how
much?

If the works are closed down, do any subsidies have to be repaid?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2002)

On the basis of information presently available, the Commission can not determine whether state aid has
been awarded to the Ammendorf railway carriage factory in Halle (Saale) in Saxon-Anhalt. It can, however,
not be excluded that state aid has been awarded under the special Treuhand aid schemes in the context of
the privatisation process of companies in the New Bundesländer or under regional aid schemes approved
by the Commission. If aid to the company was granted in accordance with the criteria laid down in the
Commission’s decisions to approve these schemes, no individual notification for aid measures to the
Ammendorf works was required.

State aid awarded outside the scope of approved aid schemes has to be notified individually by the
Member State to the Commission as ad-hoc aid. In the New Länder ad-hoc aid measures frequently had the
form of rescue and restructuring aid for companies in difficulty. The German authorities have never
notified such measures for the Ammendorf works.

As the Commission is not aware whether any aid has been granted to the company and under which
conditions, it cannot comment on the question whether any subsidies have to be repaid if the works are to
be closed down.

In the light of the questions submitted the Commission has requested, in accordance with the EC Treaty
provisions on state aid, the German authorities to provide full information on financial support, including
support from European programmes, awarded to this company. This information should enable the
Commission to determine whether Community rules have been fully observed.