WRITTEN QUESTION E-1585/03 by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission. Linguistic diversity.
Date: 2003-05-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: action programme, language policy, language teaching

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/85

Supplementary answer
given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The Honourable Member is aware that under Article 6 (3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992
on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) any plan or project likely to have a
significant effect on a Site of Community Importance shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its
implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. Where there is a negative assessment,
a project may only be authorised if there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest and no
alternative solutions exist. In such a case the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary
to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.

In the present case the Commission has not been informed of the developments described by the
Honourable Member. However, based on the documents received from the Honourable Member the
Commission has gathered additional information on these developments.

According to this information the situation appears to be as follows:

(cid:1) The clearing of trees and bushes described by the Honourable Member was authorised by the
competent German authorities (Kreisverwaltung). These authorisations were based on an assessment of
the implications of the treecutting on the conservation objectives of the sites. The assessment arrived
at the conclusion that there would be significant impacts on the sites and that therefore compensatory
measures were necessary. In spite of the significant impacts the measures were authorised for reasons
of public security, namely flood prevention. However, it is not clear whether compensatory measures
have been defined or implemented.

(cid:1) To determine whether the requirements of Article 6 (3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC have been
complied with, in particular with regard to compensation measures, the Commission, therefore, will
open an own initiative investigation into this case and contact the German authorities.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2004/C 65 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1585/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Linguistic diversity

I welcome Commissioner Viviane Reding’s words (Agence Europe, April 12) advocating language diversity
and considering that English is not necessarily the topmost priority. Ms Reding cited her own country,
Luxembourg, where the ‘mother tongue is Luxembourgish, where the languages of our German-speaking
and French-speaking neighbours are to be heard everywhere, and where you also hear the languages of the
large Italian and Portuguese communities. English is also learnt. And we are well-armed for life in a
multilingual society (…). Do you really think it is better for the people of Luxembourg to begin by
learning English rather than the languages of their neighbours? And for those who speak a minority
language, is the top priority really that of learning English?’, she asked, noting that the ‘linguistic situation
is so different in the different regions of Europe that it is not possible to make the same choice for all’.

The Comenius Language Projects’ aim is to encourage participation of all linguistic groups, as we can read
in the Guidelines for applicants 2000 under ‘Promotion of linguistic diversity’: Comenius Language Projects
seek to promote linguistic diversity in Europe by encouraging the use of all the official languages of the
European Union (plus Irish and Luxembourgish),
in particular the less widely used and less taught
languages of the European Union. The national languages of the EFTA/EEA countries and of the accession
candidate countries participating in Socrates are also eligible.

In Comenius Language Projects at least one of the two partners will normally represent one of the less
widely used and less taught languages. Many pupils will thus have an opportunity to get to know a
language which is not on their curriculum. Indeed, this is seen as one of the main aspects of the European

C 65 E/86

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

added value of these projects. At the same time, in Annex 3 of the same guidelines, under the chapter
‘Implementing the principle of equal opportunities in the second phase of Socrates’ it states that ‘Measures
to stimulate the full and active participation in the programme by persons from all ethnic and linguistic
groups will also be encouraged’.

Taking into account all these good intentions mentioned above as well as the European Parliament
resolution on the information and communication strategy for
the EU (P5_TA-PROV(2003)0187,
Strasbourg, 10.4.2003) which underlines that all official languages recognised within the Member States
must be taken into consideration, what does the European Commission think about the possibility of
including in the new edition of the Socrates Candidate Guidelines a reference to all official languages
within the neighbouring territories?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

Decision No 253/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 January 2000 establishing
the second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education ‘Socrates’ (1) defines the
teaching and learning languages as the official
languages eligible for projects aimed specifically at
languages of the Community, together with Irish and Lëtzeburgesch (Annex to Decision No 253/2000/EC:
Action 1, Comenius: school education, Action 1.1, 2b).

With regard to the Comenius language projects, therefore, it would not be possible to include in the new
Candidate Guidelines a reference to all official languages within the neighbouring territories.

the Comenius school projects, which encourage cooperation between schools (Annex to
However,
Decision No 253/2000/EC: Action 1, Comenius: school education, Action 1.1, 2a), may choose these
languages as a topic of common interest to the participating schools.

(1) OJ L 28, 3.2.2000.

(2004/C 65 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1622/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject: Derogation from the Nitrates Directive

The Irish Government has recently promised Irish farming organisations that it will seek a derogation on
the limits imposed on the spreading of slurry by the Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC (1).

How will
Agreement (Sustaining Progress)?

the Commission respond to this promise, made during negotiations for a new National

If a wealthy, long-standing EU member such as Ireland is still looking for ways out of implementing EU
legislation, does the Commission agree that this move sends a bad signal to the accession countries?

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.