WRITTEN QUESTION E-2015/03 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Transfer of the castrum of San Gimignano into private ownership.
Date: 2003-06-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Italy, architectural heritage, cultural cooperation, heritage protection, powers of the institutions (EU), tourist infrastructure

C 33 E/200

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

In examining applications for registration the Commission is particularly careful to confirm that such
provisions, if included in the specification, are shown to be necessary for protection of the name. This
stops unfair advantages arising that are in fact a barrier to the free circulation of goods.

Contrary to what the Honourable Member appears to think the raw materials from which PDO Parma ham
and Grana Padano are made must come from geographical zones that are precisely delimited in the
specification and thus may not be imported from abroad.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and
designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1) was in fact amended in April 2003 by
Council Regulation (EC) No 692/2003 of 8 April 2003 (2) in order to make it clear that specifications may
include compelling reasons for restricting certain market preparation operations to the geographical zone
of production. This amendment corresponds to the Court’s interpretation and the Commission has no
intention of proposing any adjustment of the Regulation.

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 99, 17.4.2003.

(2004/C 33 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2015/03

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject: Transfer of the ‘castrum’ of San Gimignano into private ownership

The development of the town of San Gimignano began in the Middle Ages around the ‘castrum’, the
ancient and vast fortified complex of dwellings, which was turned into the convent of San Domenico.

It was purchased by the State and used as a prison in the past. For years the municipality of San
Gimignano has been trying in vain to get it back, on the basis of the right of the local community to make
use of the public areas in its historic centre, especially those inside the original city walls, and by virtue of
a municipal council act passed in 1999 concerning a project for its recovery and restoration.

However, the Italian Government, on the strength of Articles 7 and 8 of Law No 112 of 15 June 2002,
which provide for the transfer of national heritage sites for budgetary reasons or in order to build facilities,
arranged for the ‘castrum’
to be sold to private purchasers, who intend to build a hotel and an
underground garage, which would destroy one of the most important masterpieces of town planning in
medieval and modern history. The plan has been opposed jointly by local public and private bodies and is
a cause of concern to Unesco, which has declared the historic centre of San Gimignano a world heritage
site.

Furthermore, according to Article 151 of the EC Treaty ‘Action by the Community shall be aimed at
encouraging cooperation between Member States’
(which are signatories to the Convention for the
Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe) and the competent international organisations’in the
area of conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance’.

In view of this, can the Commission say what steps it will support or take to prevent the execution of this
unfortunate project and encourage the Italian Government to hand the ‘castrum’ of San Gimignano back to
the municipality?

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/201

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Article 151 of the EC Treaty gives the Community powers to encourage cultural cooperation between
Member States and support and supplement (on the basis of funding and if necessary) their action in the
following areas:

(cid:1) improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples;

(cid:1) conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance;

(cid:1) non-commercial cultural exchanges;

(cid:1) artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector.

It should be noted that Article 151 specifically excludes any ‘harmonisation of the laws and regulations of
the Member States’ (1).

Consequently, the Honourable Member’s question does not come within the Community’s competence.

(1) Article 151(5), first indent of the EC Treaty.

(2004/C 33 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2018/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject: Language discrimination (cid:1) native speakers

In its reply to Question E-2764/02 (1), the Commission acknowledges that ‘a “native speaker”condition
contained in recruitment announcements is not acceptable under Community rules on free movement of
workers, as it is unlawfully discriminatory. Therefore the Commission considers that the use of this term in
job advertisements is prohibited by Community law.’

In the same reply, the Commission states that it is investigating ‘such job advertisements which have been
published by one Member State’s public authorities’. On 11 November 2002, the investigations had ‘not
been finalised’, but once they had, the Commission would then decide about the next steps to take.

On 7 April 2003, Cedefop advertised a vacancy for ‘an English mother-tongue secretary’ (see also: http://
www.cedefop.eu.int/download/banner/secretary_EN_0403.pdf).

1.
Is the Commission aware of the advertising of this vacancy? If so, what steps has it taken or will it
take to ensure that it is or was possible to fill this vacancy without these discriminatory conditions? What
is the mother tongue of the person who has been or will be recruited? How can the Commission show
that the ultimate recruitment was completely language-neutral? What steps has the Commission taken to
prevent such cases from recurring (cid:1) in Europe in general and at Cedefop in particular?

Can the Commission outline the progress made in its investigation into job advertisements which
2.
mention native speakers? Has it arrived at any findings? If so, what conclusions has the Commission been
able to draw from them? If not, why are these findings taking so long to obtain, and approximately when
will they be known?

(1) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003, p. 207.