WRITTEN QUESTION E-0598/00 by Hervé Novelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Refusal by France to pay housing benefit to a student on the grounds that she should have been living in France.
C 303 E/204 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 of the Commission, said that any differences between document CONF 400/97 and the Treaty could be explained by legal corrections and the final harmonisation of the texts in order to make them agree in all the languages in which the Treaty was drawn up. It is obvious, in fact blatantly obvious, that the differences between some of the different language versions are not attributable solely to what Mr Prodi said in his answer. Without any doubt, the latest wording of the French version is substantially different from the original wording, as a comparison between them shows. The latest version is not only substantially different but it is also very restrictive. The same does not apply to the final versions in Italian, English and Swedish, among others, which not only offer a broader interpretation, but, more important, are closer to the meaning of the original French version. The Union institutions must not give the impression that they can easily be swayed in their day-to-day decisions, especially as regards issues affecting the interpretation of the EU Treaty itself and the 26 island regions of the EU. I suspect that the serious nature of these problems will make recourse to the courts inevitable, in order to settle the dispute caused by what Mr Prodi in his answer calls álegal correction and the final harmonisation of the texts, particularly as regards their concordance in all the languages in which the Treaty was drawn upí. It therefore seems extremely important, politically speaking, that the island regions should endeavour to find a satisfactory solution before bringing the matter to court. The case already being brought by the Isle of Wight in the United Kingdom sets a bad precedent if it means that the 26 island regions of the Union will become involved in disputes of this kind or similar. Can the Commission therefore say whether it considers the original or the final version of the French text to be valid? Or, what amounts to the same thing, which version corresponds to what was agreed in Amsterdam in June 1997 ü the French and Spanish versions or the versions in English, Italian and Swedish, inter alia, which do not coincide at all? (1) OJ C 203, 18. 7. 2000, p. 175. Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (24 March 2000) The text of the second paragraph of Article 158 of the EC Treaty currently in force was amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam signed on 2 October 1997 and ratified by all the Member States. The Treaty of Amsterdam was drawn up in twelve languages, the texts in each of these languages being equally authentic in accordance with Article 15 thereof. (2000/C 303 E/234) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0598/00 by HervØ Novelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 February 2000) Subject: Refusal by France to pay housing benefit to a student on the grounds that she should have been living in France France has refused to pay housing benefit to a French student studying in Belgium for the sole reason that she should be resident in France in order to receive this allowance. This provision, which discriminates significantly between students of the same nationality according to whether they are studying in France or another EU country, is certainly not conducive to achieving a united Europe! 24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/205 Can the Commission say whether provisions of this kind are not contrary to the various treaties and subsequent texts which underlie European integration and determine how it works in practice? Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (12 April 2000) Under Community law as it currently stands, the Member States are free to decide on their own authority whether their nationals who wish to pursue studies in another Member State should continue to receive grants or other financial assistance in the host country. They are also free to provide financial assistance and grants specifically for the purpose of enhancing student mobility. This decision is a matter for the Member States alone. Although the provisions of French law referred to by the Honourable Member represent an obstacle to student mobility, they do not constitute an infringement of Community law. (2000/C 303 E/235) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0609/00 by Jorge HernÆndez Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission (3 March 2000) Subject: Raising the profile of the European School of Restoration across the Community EU involvement in the project which has made it possible to establish a European School of Restoration in the Albaicín district of Granada has acted as a catalyst enabling the said district to begin finding its place in a new period of economic recovery which may help it to emerge from its sharp economic decline. It seems reasonable to imagine that, besides providing economic aid to make this project reality, the Commission could take further action and use its privileged cultural contacts to publicise the Granada school in similar circles across Europe. Will the Commission set out its approach to the establishment it has helped to found in Granada and say how it intends to contribute towards ensuring that a higher profile for the European School of Restoration in similar cultural circles across Europe brings a return on investment in the school? Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission (13 April 2000) The European School of Restoration in the Albaicín district of Granada was set up as a part of the measures and sub-measures of the Albaicíní urban pilot project (1), which aims to revitalise the districtís economy. Urban pilot projects act as catalysts by nature, but are limited in terms of time. Once they are completed, they no longer receive Structural Fund assistance. Moreover, the Commission cannot ensure the profitability of the projects it has financed. Community aid beneficiaries are therefore responsible for this and for ensuring that their operations continue to run. With regard to the cultural sector in particular, the Honourable Memberís attention is drawn to the fact that the Commission may grant assistance to initiatives only within the framework of and in accordance with the conditions of the new Culture 2000í programme. The first call for applications was issued during March 2000. (1) ERDF Decision No 97. 11. 29. 001