WRITTEN QUESTION E-3768/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Observance of the repeatedly acknowledged language rights of the Slovene-speaking minority in the Austrian province of Carinthia prior to Slovenia's accession to the EU.
Date: 2002-12-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Carinthia, EU law - national law, Slovenia, linguistic discrimination, linguistic group

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/185

According to this judgment, the advantages deriving from a bilateral convention between a Member State
and a non-member country must be granted to workers from other Member States which are not party to
the convention; this is in line with the principle of equal treatment for a State’s own nationals and those of
other Member States, as provided for in Article 39 of the EC Treaty.

Following the judgment of 15 January 2002 in Case C-55/00 Gottardo, the Commission asked all the
Member States to notify it about any practical difficulties in implementing this ruling, and about the
measures they intend to take in order to ensure that the various agreements comply with the Court of
Justice’s ruling.

A discussion of these questions took place on 9/10 December 2002 at the meeting of the Administrative
Commission on Social Security for Migrant Workers. The Commission is currently examining the replies
from the Member States.

(2003/C 155 E/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3768/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Subject: Observance of the repeatedly acknowledged language rights of the Slovene-speaking minority in

the Austrian province of Carinthia prior to Slovenia’s accession to the EU

1.
Does the Commission recall that, after World War I, a majority of the inhabitants of the southern
edge of the Austrian province of Carinthia, most of whom were Slovene-speakers, voted in a referendum
to remain part of Austria instead of joining the recently founded Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and
Slovenes, one reason being that they were given an undertaking that in the area where they lived, even
within the Republic of Austria, the Slovene language would play a full role in government, information
provision and education?

2.
Does the Commission also recall that in the 1955 State Treaty, which made full re-emergence of the
Austrian State possible after World War II, the collective language rights of ethnic minorities in the areas
where they live, denied or ignored until then, were again guaranteed?

3.
Is the Commission aware that the hitherto largest party in Carinthia and the present Governor,
Haider, from that party, owe their popularity in part to their propaganda in favour of a monolingual
German Carinthia and to their opposition to the Slovenes’ language rights, but that a court ruling at the
highest level, in 2001, confirmed that the placename signs in Slovene which have been vandalised and
removed by German-speaking opponents of bilingualism since the 1970s must be repaired and put back?

Can the Commission confirm that this conflict is now threatening to escalate because the Carinthian
4.
Government is still thwarting implementation of the court ruling, that the Slovene-speakers in Carinthia
have now rejected a proposal to keep funding the continued existence of their long-established radio
station, Radio Dva, from government monies in return for voluntarily giving up most Slovene-language
placename signs, and that that rejection is to be punished at the start of 2003 by ending subsidies for the
radio station?

5. What is the Commission doing to ensure that, in time for accession by the neighbouring Republic of
Slovenia to the European Union on 1 May 2004, there is complete observance in the Austrian province of
Carinthia of the language rights granted to the Slovene-speaking population in 1919, 1955 and 2001, so
that the disagreement between the two communities does not soon grow into a permanent border conflict
between two EU Member States which is increasingly difficult to resolve?

Source: 2 December 2002 edition of the Dutch newspaper ‘De Volkskrant’

C 155 E/186

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2003)

The rights of minorities are part of the principles listed in the first paragraph of Article 6 of the Treaty on
the European Union. These principles, which have been set out in various international conventions (1),
the European Union (2).
have been solemnly reaffirmed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of
Article 21(1) of this Charter refers to the prohibition of discrimination based, among others, on ethnic
origin, language, religion or membership of a national minority, and Article 22 requires that the Union
respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. It should be noted, however, that Article 51 of the
Charter specifies that its provisions are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union with due
regard to the principle of subsidiarity, and to the Member States only when they are implementing
Community law.

These principles are enforced by means of the infringement proceedings provided for in Article 226
(former Article 169) of the EC Treaty and by the political procedure laid down in Article 7 of the Treaty on
the European Union. Under the former, the Commission may bring the matter before the Court of Justice
if the complaint comes within the scope of Community law: this is notably the case when the Member
State does not transpose a Directive correctly. Under the latter, if there is a serious or persistent breach of
the principles mentioned in Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union, the Commission or one third
of the Member States may refer the matter to the Council, meeting in the composition of the Heads of
State or Government.

In the matter raised by the Honourable Member,
it would not appear that Community law has been
wrongly applied, nor does the Commission have, at this stage, information that would imply the existence
of a serious and persistent breach within the meaning of Article 7 of the Treaty on the European Union.

(1) See, for example, the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 27 of which protects the
cultural life and languages of persons belonging to minorities. The Covenant has been ratified by all the Member
States.

(2) OJ C 364, 18.12.2000.

(2003/C 155 E/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3781/02

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Code of conduct for multinational undertakings which import foodstuffs

With regard to the production of foodstuffs, the European Union applies environmental, animal welfare
and food safety standards which are different from those in other parts of the world. For example, the use
of meat-and-bone meal in cattle feed is prohibited in the EU. Those measures generally put European
farmers at a competitive disadvantage compared with farmers in other parts of the world.

Current WTO rules permit imports of foodstuffs, and not just raw materials, to be restricted in the event of
their presenting a manifest risk to public or animal health.

One possible way of resolving the problem of competitive disadvantage would be to negotiate, with
undertakings which import foodstuffs, a Code of Conduct whereby they would agree to import only those
products manufactured in accordance with production methods with standards as high as those in the
European Union.

1. What possibilities does the Commission see of such a Code of Conduct being drawn up?

2. What other possibilities does the Commission see of measures being taken in the near future, i.e.
before the conclusion of the WTO negotiations, which will reduce the competitive disadvantage of
European farmers?