WRITTEN QUESTION E-1616/02 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Worsening quality of Portuguese in Commission documents.
Date: 2002-06-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, linguistics, official document, official language

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/71

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concerns for the delay leading to a settlement to the
dispute between Hunting Technical Services (HTS) and the Nigerian authorities further to the termination
of a technical assistance contract by the latter, in 1996.

As the Honourable Member is aware, in the framework of the European Development Fund (EDF), the
Commission acts as a funding agency and is not party to the contract. In line with the procedures set out
in the Financing Agreement between the Commission and the Government of Nigeria, whereby the Chief
Authorising Officer may intervene should the National Authorising Officer fail to execute his mandate, the
Commission transmitted its draft settlement proposal to the National Authorising Officer of Nigeria back
in May 2001. Despite several reminders, the Commission only received a reply by letter dated 2 May
2002. Further to this reply, the Chief Authorising Officer of the EDF has decided to use the powers
conferred upon him by the Financing Agreement and make all the payments directly to the company
concerned out of the credits available for Nigeria under the 7th EDF.

A dispute settlement agreement was put forward to HTS in a meeting held in Brussels on 29 May 2002. In
doing so, the Commission adhered to the line of conduct suggested by the Ombudsman who had asked
the Commission to propose a settlement of the claim for financial losses put forward by HTS, by 31 May
2002 at the latest. Subsequently, HTS has agreed to the settlement as presented by the Commission in that
meeting.

(2003/C 92 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1616/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Worsening quality of Portuguese in Commission documents

The quality of Portuguese used in official Commission documents has deteriorated and is beginning to give
rise to serious concern.

I had already been compelled to use other language versions of the proposal for a regulation on the
establishment of a common classification of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) (1) because the
Portuguese version was incomprehensible on some key points.

I had also been confronted with ‘governança’ instead of ‘boa governação’ as a translation of ‘governance’,
the Portuguese language among the Commission services.
which reveals a complete ignorance of
According to the on-line Portuguese dictionary published by Porto Editora, ‘governança’ is a deprecatory
feminine noun used as a pejorative term for the government. Moreover, any Portuguese person living in
Portugal
is well aware of this without needing to consult a dictionary, and the Commission’s official
translation of this extremely important political initiative has made its initiative an object of ridicule in
Portugal.

I have now been confronted with a pair of regulations, (COM(2001) 764 final and COM(2002) 108 final),
in which the Portuguese version of
is given as ‘pesca das unidades
populacionais da fundura’.

‘fishing for deep-sea stocks’

Even though the Porto Editora on-line dictionary allows the term ‘fundura’ as a synonym of ‘profundidade’
(depth), or an attribute equivalent to ‘de fundo’ (deep), which are the two terms used to refer to this type of
fish in Portuguese as it is spoken in Portugal, the expressions ‘peixe da fundura’, or ‘unidade populacional
da fundura’, do not exist in Portuguese and are not used by anyone in fishing circles, the correct
expressions being ‘peixe de profundidade’ or ‘peixe de fundo’.

The poor linguistic quality of these two documents, whose subject matter is already highly esoteric and far-
removed from everyday reality, makes them even less comprehensible.

C 92 E/72

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Is the Commission aware that texts which use language badly or which are written in an incomprehensible
jargon create a gulf between the institutions and the European public?

(1) COM(2001) 83 final.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

The Commission and its Linguistic Services are always concerned when users of the Services feel that they
have cause for complaint about the quality of linguistic output and such complaints are assessed with great
thoroughness. In addition the Translation Service constantly seeks further improvement in linguistic quality
and multilingual concordance.

In response to the Honourable Member’s question, the Vice-President of the Commission in charge of
Personnel and Administration is informed that the Portuguese version of the Proposal for a Regulation of
the Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a common classification of Territorial Units for
Statistics (NUTS) (1), was read attentively and there was no particular inconsistency with the other language
versions which would give rise to difficulties in comprehension or lack of concordance. Moreover, the
Portuguese Statistical Office (INE), with which the Translation Service is in regular contact for advice and
feedback on terminology, raised no queries on this account. If the Honourable Member will specify which
essential points caused his remarks the Translation Service will be glad to respond accordingly.

The Vice-President of the Commission in charge of Personnel and Administration is further informed that,
whilst the expression ‘da fundura’ is used to designate several deep-sea species of fish, the Commission
acknowledges the point made by the Honourable Member that the expression is not employed with
reference to deep-sea stocks by the Portuguese fishing sector in Portugal. Steps have already been taken to
correct the Portuguese versions of both proposals for Council Regulations.

On the issue of translation of ‘European Governance’, the Translation Service carefully pondered its choices
in full knowledge that the term has not been in common usage in several countries and the solutions
adopted might be challenged by some linguistic experts or others in Portugal and elsewhere. The
Translation Service was therefore asked, as part of the preparations for adopting the White Paper (2), to set
up a multilingual study group to examine the transposition to the different official languages of the term
‘governance’ which is becoming more commonly used in several countries than at any previous time. The
mandate of the study group included the possibility of finding a term which has identical roots for
languages that share linguistic and cultural affinities and, most importantly, one which would not be
confused with ‘government’ or ‘governmental activity’, (which is conventionally understood to refer to the
activity resulting from the political and administrative apparatus of governing).

After a careful examination of the limited choices available, the selection of the word ‘governança’
(‘governança europeia’) was based on the decision to recycle an old term which had the same roots as its
French and Spanish equivalents and had become neutral in Portuguese usage. Indeed, the Commission
linguists and terminologists came to the conclusion that, as with the French equivalent, any negative
connotations associated with the term dated back to the ‘Ancien Régime’ and, consequently, had since
become obsolete. The text of their reasoned opinion is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and
to Parliament’s Secretariat. As part of the Translation Service’s consideration of the issue, contacts were
made by the Service with ‘Dicionário da Academia’ and ‘Dicionário Porto Editora’ with a view to revising
their entries on the word ‘Governança’ in order to convey the new meaning of the term.

The Commission and its Linguistic Services are well aware of the fundamental importance of language to
identity, confidence and good communication. That is the reason for the intensive and extensive efforts
which are always invested in trying to ensure proper and accurate usage in all of the official languages.

(1) OJ C 180 E, 26.6.2001.
(2) OJ C 287, 12.10.2001.