WRITTEN QUESTION E-3800/02 by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission. The increasingly common use of English as the only working language.
Date: 2003-01-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accession to the European Union, financial agreement, institutional activity, multilingualism, official language, use of languages

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/49

The Commission is currently examining Decree No 2002-1051 of 1 August 2002, which was sent to it by
the French authorities following the reasoned opinion.
is also working closely with the French
authorities to resolve this matter in the most appropriate manner.

It

The Commission itself as well as Community law and case law stress that the main purpose of legislation
on labelling of foodstuffs should be to inform and protect consumers.

In practice, use of the national language constitutes a natural guarantee that these imperatives are met.
However, it should not give rise to the adoption of disproportionate and unjustified measures which could
actually undermine the objective of providing consumers with information.

On the basis of case law, the Commission takes the view that national legislation should allow the use of
specific foreign words on labelling where this ensures that consumers are informed or even (cid:1) in some
cases (cid:1) better informed. Examples include the names of foreign recipes with no French equivalent. In such
cases, the name in the original language provides consumers with information more effectively than a
French expression.

Far from seeking to restrict the use of a given language, the Commission’s decision thus mirrors its
determination to promote trade in goods which so often reflect Europe’s cultural diversity and to ensure as
far as possible that consumers are properly informed about the nature of these products.

(2003/C 268 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3800/02

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Subject: The increasingly common use of English as the only working language

The webpage on languages on the Commission’s Europa website starts as follows: ‘In a Europe which will
always be multilingual, learning languages opens doors. For individuals, it can open the door to a better
career, to the chance to live, study or work abroad, even to more enjoyable holidays. For companies,
multilingual staff can open the door to European and global markets. But there is more than this. The
their identity and their culture. So learning languages means
language a person speaks is part of
understanding other people and their way of thinking.
It means opposing racism, xenophobia and
intolerance.’

Conversely, Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Multiannual Financing Agreement between the Commission and
the candidate countries states: ‘Any communication between the Commission and the candidate country
related to this Agreement shall be in English.’

Even though English is only one of three working languages, it is being used more and more. Is it true that
English is becoming de facto, if not de jure, the only official language of the Commission?

Is it true that the Commission insists on the use of only one language in the above-mentioned Financing
Agreement?

How does the Commission intend to uphold multilingualism in the daily work of the institutions?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

The offending provision merely reflects common practice during the accession negotiations. When the ten
candidate countries join the European Union, each new Member State will use its own language to
communicate with the Commission and the other Community institutions under Regulation No 1/1958 (1).

C 268 E/50

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

Multiannual Financial Agreements between the Commission and the candidate countries are drawn up in
the language of the beneficiary country and English, the English version being the authentic text. These
agreements also provide for communication between the Commission and the beneficiary country relating
to them to be in English. The negotiation of the agreements took place mainly in English but whenever the
representatives of the country concerned so wished, in French and on occasion in German.

The Commission would like to emphasise that Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations provides that, as a
general condition of recruitment, a successful candidate must have ‘a thorough knowledge of one of the
languages of the Communities and a satisfactory knowledge of another language of the Communities to
the extent necessary for the performance of his duties.’

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that as part of its
internal training policy, it took a decision in 1991 that a ‘language profile’ should be drawn up for each
new official or member of the temporary staff with a view to encouraging that person to perfect his
knowledge of a second language or to acquire a third.

The Commission must also recall that it made an absolute priority of providing intensive language courses
for officials in order to fill the gaps and complete the language training of officials who did not necessarily
have the opportunity at the outset to learn the languages most frequently used for specific training courses
(other than language courses). Trainers are now making a great effort to use not only the official language
in which the specific training course is given but also the second language; better still, the trend is
increasingly towards bilingual courses (for example, in the field of management) where it has been noted
that trainers selected for their multi-cultural background are being employed more and more; a number of
specific training courses are given in three languages.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community,

OJ B 17, 6.10.1958.

(2003/C 268 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3823/02

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject: Freedom of movement for Palestinians within the EU

A constituent of mine raised the following concerns regarding the freedom of movement within Europe of
Palestinian refugees with European spouses. Although she has German citizenship, making travel plans for
her husband and herself to visit family in her homeland is continually frustrating and difficult.

Palestinian refugees who fled the Arab-Israeli conflict in what was previously Palestine to the refugee
camps of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egyptian-run Gaza and the Palestinian territory of the West Bank from
1948 onwards have since been refused the right of return by Israeli authorities. Unable to acquire the
nationality of a third state, refugees and their descendants have been forced to assume a ‘stateless’ status.
The freedom of movement of these refugees even those married to European citizens, is severely restricted
worldwide. Whilst it is possible for Palestinians with European spouses to be granted residence in some EU
states, travelling to other EU states remains complicated and restrictive. Travel documents issued to
Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, for example, are not recognised by most EU countries and are subject to
exceptional passport-recognition procedures for visa applications.

What plans does the Commission have to review residency and asylum policies in the EU and to consider
changes to grant Palestinians and other displaced or ‘stateless’ persons married to EU citizens greater
freedom of movement within the EU and the ability to apply for long-term visas?