WRITTEN QUESTION E-1710/03 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages (EBLUL).
Date: 2003-05-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Greece, defamation, linguistic group, minority language, non-governmental organisation, political propaganda, regional language, xenophobia

C 11 E/218

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

No other meat market has been visited by the FVO in Greece. However, two fish wholesale markets were
inspected during a FVO mission (DG(SANCO)/3164/2001, 29 January to 9 February 2001) on fishery and
live bivalve mollusc production. There were some deficiencies in the hygiene and maintenance of both
markets, and structural and equipment deficiencies in one (there was a plan for the reconstruction of the
latter premises). In addition, official controls were not performed as required by Community legislation.
However, these deficiencies were not considered to be sufficiently serious to jeopardise consumer health.
Following the FVO mission, the Greek authorities gave guarantees as to the corrective actions taken to
address the identified deficiencies which the Commission will continue to monitor.

(2004/C 11 E/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1710/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: The European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages (EBLUL)

Recently, on 2 May 2002, I received a reply from the Commission to my question No E-1140/03 (1). This
reply did not contain answers to all the queries raised in my original question with regard to anti-Greek
attacks contained in a book which was distributed by the EBLUL to MEPs (co-funded by the Commission,
as mentioned on page 2). This book contains clear anti-Greek attacks both in the shape of ‘advice’ and
‘hints’ to Greece (page 6 and elsewhere) and in the form of the ‘findings’ that in Greece there are
‘Macedonian’ speakers (page 5), while the EBLUL President, Mr Brezigar, recommends (page 12) that
‘Greeks should learn English as well as Macedonian’ (!).

Does the Commission agree with these attacks contained in the publication in question, which it funds
itself? What is its position with regard to the vilification of an EU Member State by a bureau funded with
EU resources? Why is funding being provided for a bureau circulating propaganda against a Member State?
How does it intend to act to put a stop to the Bureau’s vilification of Greece? Has it obtained the precise
identities of the members of the EBLUL committees in every Member State, including Greece?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 176.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2003)

the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages

As the Commission has already pointed out in its answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question
E-1140/03 (1),
is an independent non-
governmental organisation working in the field of
languages and linguistic diversity. EBLUL is an
international association established under Belgian law on 25 October 1919, (modified 6 December 1954).
Its Statutes were published in the ‘Moniteur belge’ of 7 November 1996 with the identification number
24581/96.

(EBLUL)

With respect to the admission of new Member State Committees, Articles 5 and 6 of the EBLUL Statutes
state that any person or association may submit a written application for membership to the Board of
Directors, which then refers to the General Assembly for consultation and a vote. A total of 13 Member
State Committees representing 13 Member States voted in favour of the accession of the Greek Member
State Committee to EBLUL in the General Assembly which took place on 15 June 2002 in Ljouwert (NL).

Member State Committees are autonomous bodies which seek to represent all the regional and minority
languages spoken within an individual state’s linguistic communities. Further information regarding the
Member State Committees, including the Greek Committee, can be found on the EBLUL web site at the
following addresses: http://www.eblul.org/pajenn.asp?ID=36&yezh=saozneg and http://www.eblul.org/
pajenn.asp?ID=65&yezh=galleg&rumm=

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/219

The minority language groups in the Union were identified by researchers and the results published in
1996 in the Euromosaic study (2), as indicated by the Commission in its answer to the Honourable
Member’s above-mentioned question. On page 41 of the English version of this study a reference is made
to the existence of Aromanian, Albanian and Slavo-Macedonian in Greece, each of which has an estimated
number of speakers of between 50 000 and 80 000.

In its Resolution adopted in December 2001 on regional and lesser-used European languages,
the
Parliament called on the Commission to propose measures to promote linguistic diversity and language
learning, with equal respect
the Union, with a view to improving mutual
understanding and tolerance in a multilingual and multicultural Europe.

for the languages of

The need for action by the Union and the Member States to improve language learning and promote
linguistic diversity was also recognised by the Education Council in February 2002. In its Resolution on
the promotion of linguistic diversity and language learning (3) the Council invited the Commission to draw
up proposals in this field by early 2003 and asked the Member States to take concrete steps to achieve that
end.

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 176.
(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/langmin/euromosaic_en.html.
(3) OJ C 50, 23.2.2002.

(2004/C 11 E/246)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1719/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Failure of transatlantic dialogue and public nature of efforts to resume this dialogue or not

1. What were the grounds for Commissioner Lamy saying in Washington in early March that there was
a sort of fatigue problem with the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD)? What expectations had the
TABD failed to meet or would it be unable to meet in the future?

Can the Commission confirm that it has decided, together with the US Administration, to strengthen
2.
the TABD and give it new tasks, in particular preparing for further WTO negotiations? What is expected
from the revamped TABD?

Is the correspondence between Commissioners Lamy and Liikanen and US Commerce Secretary
3.
Evans, including Evans’ proposal, to be made public or at least available to Members of the European
Parliament?

Are the minutes of the meetings in Brussels at the end of April, at which the proposal to relaunch

4.
the TABD was discussed, available to the public or at least to Members of the European Parliament?

Can NGOs and Members of the European Parliament attend the half-day meeting on the margins of

5.
the 25 June US-EU summit if they so wish?

6.
Is the Commission aware that two other transatlantic dialogues, the TAED for the environment and
the TALD for labour, have virtually stopped and that they are therefore just as worthy of relaunching and
strengthening as the TABD?

7.
Is the Commission also taking the initiative in efforts to re-energise the other transatlantic dialogues
with civil society or does it take the view that, unlike the TABD, there is no justification for their
continued existence?