WRITTEN QUESTION E-0932/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council. Violations of the Treaty by the French and Belgian governments.
26. 1. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/133 the holocaust is concerned, it should be pointed out that Article 149 TEC (education) clearly indicates that the European Community should fully respect áthe responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systemsí. (1) OJ C 1, 3. 1. 1998, p. 1. (2) OJ C 368, 5. 12. 1997, p. 1. (2001/C 26 E/165) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0932/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council (30 March 2000) Subject: Violations of the Treaty by the French and Belgian governments The French and Belgian governments have recently drawn attention to themselves by making an increasing number of calls for compliance with the Treaties. This is in itself a praiseworthy initiative. However, these calls are not of a general nature but are at present directed exclusively against Austria. The basic values underlying European union though, should apply to all. According to the official data currently available (1), during the period 1995-1998 a total of 724 sets of proceedings for violation of the Treaty were brought against France, resulting in 463 letters of formal notice, 206 reasoned opinions and 55 complaints to the Court of Justice. During the same period 589 sets of proceedings were brought against Belgium, resulting in 333 letters of formal notice, 192 reasoned opinions and 64 complaints to the Court of Justice. The Belgian and French governments thus not only lead the field as self-appointed champions of the Treaties, but are also champions at violating those Treaties. These two countries occupy an unchallenged position at the top of statistics. By contrast, during the same period only 5 complaints were brought against Austria, compared with 64 against Belgium and 55 against France. Only 78 reasoned opinions were issued against Austria, compared with 206 against France and 192 against Belgium. And on only 321 occasions was the behaviour of Austria criticised in a letter of formal notice, as against 463 occasions for France and 333 for Belgium. France and Belgium thus clearly have much ground to make up in the European integration process compared to Austria, which has only been a Member State of the EU since 1995 and has a very good record of compliance with the Treaty. Can the Council Presidency say what measures it intends to take to point out to France and Belgium that they should acknowledge their own deficiencies in the European integration process instead of criticising these deficiencies in others? What does the Presidency intend to do to give publicly and praise to those countries which have a good record of implementing Community law? (1) OJ C 354, 7. 12. 1999, p. 75. Reply (8 June 2000) The Council would draw the Honourable Memberís attention to the fact that it is not the task of the Council Presidency but of the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to ensure that the provisions of the Treaty are applied and that Member States honour their obligations under the Treaty (Articles 211 and 226 of the EC Treaty). The Council would also point out that the Commission publishes a ásingle market scoreboardí twice a year, giving details of the progress made by Member States in transposing Directives relating to the single market and the infringement proceedings brought by the Commission against Member States. Each scoreboard is discussed in the Internal Marketí Council