WRITTEN QUESTION E-0159/03 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Commission's position on Article 13 of the EC Treaty.
Date: 2003-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, European Constitution, European Convention on Human Rights, European convention, European treaties, anti-discriminatory measure, human rights, linguistic group, national minority

C 268 E/74

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

All alpine Member States have ratified the Convention: Austria on 19 April 1994, Germany on 16 June
1994, France on 30 November 1995 and Italy on 28 September 1999. Slovenia, which is the only alpine
acceding country, ratified it on 22 March 1995.

In its reply to previous written questions (joint reply to E-1148/02, E-1149/02 and E-1229/02 (2) and reply
to E-1818/02 (3)), the Commission stated its practical difficulties in playing an active role in the activities
undertaken under the Convention and its Protocols, as well as its willingness to consider options to
increase its involvement.

Indeed, the Commission stresses the interest it attaches to mountain regions. This interest is exemplified by
the fact that the Commission, in its second Report on Cohesion, recognised that some mountain regions
suffer from severe development problems and should be a priority for the future of the Community’s
cohesion policy. Moreover, the Commission has just launched a study on mountain areas. The objectives
of this study are to define mountain areas (zoning), to set up a database including different kind of
indicators, in particular those linked to environment and hazards, and finally, to analyse the situation of
these regions in a sustainable development perspective. Other Community policies such as its rural
development and environment policy are also contributing to the sustainable development of mountain
regions including the Alpine region, and to the conservation of mountain eco-systems.

(1) Council decision No 96/191/EC of 26 February 1996 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on the

protection of the Alps, OJ L 61, 12.3.1996.

(2) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 91.
(3) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 140.

(2003/C 268 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0159/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject: Commission’s position on Article 13 of the EC Treaty

The European Convention is currently working on a constitutional Treaty for the European Union of the
future. Among other proposals,
it supports the incorporation into the EU Treaties of the Charter of
Fundamental Human Rights, as well as the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human
Rights (ECHR).

Both these texts on human rights proscribe discrimination based on language or on membership of a
national minority (Article 21, Charter of Fundamental Human Rights; Article 14, ECHR).

However, neither form of discrimination is mentioned in Article 13 of the EC Treaty. Consequently they
also go unmentioned in the Action Programme to combat discrimination.

The Commission:

(cid:1) Is it in favour of amending Article 13 of the EC Treaty to ensure that, rather than simply paying lip
service to the principle of comprehensive non-discrimination, this principle is given visible and
practical expression in the programmes of the EU?

(cid:1) Is it prepared to tackle the issue through its representatives in the Convention?

(cid:1) Will

it consider,

independently of the Convention’s discussions, the possibilities and alternatives
available as to how preventing and combating discrimination based on language or membership of a
national minority can be given due place in its initiatives?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

In the framework of the work of the Convention, the Commission supports the incorporation of the
general principle of non-discrimination into the future Constitution of the Union. It also supports the
inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the text of the Constitution, which would give
constitutional status to Article 21 of the Charter. It is the role of the Praesidium of the Convention to make

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/75

proposals on the provisions of the future Constitution. Draft Article 6 proposed by the Praesidium
proscribes all discrimination on grounds of nationality.
the
Commission, to ensure overall consistency when incorporating the various existing provisions on non-
discrimination, such as Articles 12 and 13 of the EC Treaty and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights.

in the opinion of

It would be wise,

The proscription of all discrimination, including that based on language or membership of a national
minority, is a general principle of Community law, which the Commission must, in any event, observe in
its initiatives in accordance with Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. This general principle has
been clearly highlighted by Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Commission agrees entirely with the Honourable Member about the need to give due place in its
initiatives to preventing and combating discrimination based on language or membership of a national
minority, and all the other cases listed in Article 21 of the Charter.

The Commission would point out that all
Commission are automatically checked for compatibility with the Charter at
evidenced by the inclusion of a specific recital in any proposal directly relating to fundamental rights (1).

legislative proposals and regulations to be adopted by the
the drafting stage, as

(1)

‘Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’, Commission memorandum of 13 March
2001, SEC(2001) 380/3.

(2003/C 268 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0168/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Policy to prevent the spread of the MRSA bacteria

(29 January 2003)

At present there is no common European policy to combat the spread of the MRSA bacteria and policy
differs from one Member State to another. For instance, the Netherlands has a very restrictive policy in
comparison with most other European countries. With success, as the Netherlands is one of the countries
with the lowest incidence of MRSA. The policy differences between countries mean that access to hospitals
in the Netherlands is more difficult for patients from abroad, because of the fear of the spread of the
bacteria.

Can the Commission indicate what differences there are between the Member States’ policies to

1.
prevent the spread of the MRSA bacteria?

Does it consider a common European policy desirable in this matter, not least from the point of view

2.
of access to hospitals for patients from other Member States?

Does it intend to take measures under the new action programme for public health to promote such

3.
a Community policy?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

The latest report

from the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Scheme (EARSS) (1),
1.
a Commission funded project, shows that southern European countries, plus Ireland and the United
Kingdom report Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) proportions of over 30 %, whereas
northern European countries have proportions of MRSA in bacteraemia patients below 1 %.