Legal challenge over status of culture

Date: 30/01/1997

By Rory Watson

THE European Parliament is campaigning to raise the status of culture in the EU by challenging the legality of a 15-million-ecu programme approved by Union governments last year.

The target of the MEPs' attack is the multi-annual programme to promote linguistic diversity in the information society adopted by EU ministers in November.

The Parliament wants the European Court of Justice to annul the decision on the grounds that it failed to take sufficient account of the cultural aspects of the proposed programme.

The challenge, which began its lengthy journey through the legal process this week, was tabled with the ECJ on 9 January by former Parliament President Klaus Hänsch.

Although the appeal focuses on one specific programme, the case has far wider implications

in that it will provide the Luxembourg-based judges with their first opportunity to interpret the status of the cultural provisions set out in Article 128 of the Maastricht Treaty.

In particular, supporters of the legal challenge point to the fourth paragraph of the article which states: “The Community shall take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of this treaty.”

Dutch Christian Democrat MEP Peter Pex, the recently elected chairman of the Parliament's cultural affairs committee, believes it is often impossible to separate the cultural and political aspects of EU policies.

“We think that it is very important for the Parliament and all Union institutions to have the exact meaning of Article 128(4). This paragraph makes it very clear that in all Community activities where cultural aspects are concerned these must be taken into account. The point is to make sure member states pay more attention to cultural issues,” he said.

Pex added: “We believe that promoting linguistic diversity is a primary goal of the legislation and that has a lot to do with conserving and safeguarding cultural heritage as specified in Article 128.”

Both the European Commission and the Council of Ministers have put forward counter arguments, defending their decision to propose and adopt the legislation under the industrial provisions of the Maastricht Treaty (Article 130).

“The programme recognises cultural aspects, but as it supports business and technological progress, it was felt that Article 130 should take precedence,” explained one official.

In a bid to try to bridge the differences between the two sides last year, Greek New Democracy MEP Nana Mouskouri (the parliamentary rapporteur on the proposal) suggested using both Maastricht articles to establish a twin legal base.

She argued that the breakdown of planned expenditure throughout the three-year programme clearly indicated that cultural considerations took priority over industrial ones.

But this approach was rejected by both the Commission and the Council.

The three main strands of the programme are designed to support construction of infrastructure for European language resources, expand language industries and promote the use of advanced language tools in the European public sector.

When the joint legal base idea was first raised last April, the Parliament's cultural affairs committee left observers in little doubt about the importance it attached to the issue.

The then chairwoman, Irish Christian Democrat MEP Mary Banotti, warned that if the argument was not settled, a legal challenge might be on the cards.

The legal dispute is far from being a purely theoretical debate between the validity of two treaty articles.

Under the industrial provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, the Parliament is merely consulted on proposed measures, while it enjoys wider powers under Article 128 which enable it to use the threat of rejecting draft legislation to ensure some of its preferred amendments are taken on board by governments.

Some parliamentary sources believe it was this fundamental difference in the decision-making procedures, rather than the possibility of confusion through the use of two separate legal articles, which lay behind the refusal of both the Commission and the Council to take on board Mouskouri's suggested compromise.

The Luxembourg-based judges' ruling is not expected for several months, but observers hope that their response to the parliamentary challenge will set out clear guidelines on the status of cultural issues in future EU decision-making.