Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[**Avis juridique important**](../../../editorial/legal_notice.htm)

*|*

# 92000E0446

**WRITTEN QUESTION E-0446/00 by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Official languages and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market.** 
  
*Official Journal 374 E , 28/12/2000 P. 0076 - 0077*

  

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0446/00

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Official languages and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

An appeal has been lodged with the EU Court of the First Instance against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) in respect of the validity of the provisions of Regulation 40/94(1) on the Community trade mark which provides that the languages of this Office are Spanish, English, French, German and Italian and excludes all the other official languages of the European Union.

The Commission has intervened in favour of this provision.

The provision in question introduces a very serious derogation from the fundamental principle of the equality of the eleven official languages of the Union and constitutes a case of blatant discrimination against the other languages and the European citizens who speak them. The latter are thus deprived of the right to communicate, receive and impart information and claim their rights in their own languages in matters falling within the scope of the Alicante Office. One example will suffice: the official journal of the Office is published only in the five languages mentioned above.

Bearing in mind that the European Union has eleven official languages and that the Commission which is the guardian of the Treaties has an obligation to respect all eleven languages and to conduct its business in them, will the Commission say:

1. Why has it decided to intervene in a procedure in which the Council is also intervening in favour of the contentious provisions?

2. How is this intervention compatible with its obligation to respect the Treaties and thus the eleven official languages of the Community, especially since the Commission had not included this or any similar provision limiting the working languages of the Office to the five above languages in its proposal on this matter?

3. Does the Commission intend to apply the same language arrangements to its own work or is it planning to propose to the Council that the official languages of the Community be reduced to the above five languages?

(1) OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

The Honourable Member raises questions concerning a case which is pending before the Court of First Instance. The Commission will therefore limit itself to commenting briefly on the questions, without entering into the detail of the matters to be discussed before the Court.

It therefore replies as follows to the questions asked:

1. The Commission's decision to intervene in support of the conclusions of the Council and the office for harmonization in the internal market (OHMI) was based on its view that the institutional importance of the questions raised in this case required it to take a position.

2. It is true that the language régime of the OHMI as decided by the Council did not figure in the Commission's original proposal for a regulation setting up the Office. However, the Commission takes the view that the language régime finally adopted is lawful, bearing in mind the need to strike a balance between the principle of equal treatment on the one hand, and the efficiency of the Community trademark system, on the other.

3. The Commission has no plans to apply the language régime of the OHMI to its own work, or to reduce the number of official languages of the Community.

[Top](#document1)