Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 52005DC0356

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - The European Indicator of Language Competence

/* COM/2005/0356 final */

In force


Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - The European Indicator of Language Competence /* COM/2005/0356 final */


Brussels, 1.8.2005

COM(2005) 356 final


The European Indicator of Language Competence



1 Multilingualism in European society 3

2 Limitations of available data 3

3 Need for more reliable data 5


1 Purpose 6

2 Method 6

3 Target Group 6

4 Scale 7

5 Languages 7

6 Skills 7

7 Other data 7

8 Cooperation 8

9 European Indicator of Language Competence Advisory Board 8

10 Resource implications 9

11 Timing 9



1 Multilingualism in European society

The European Union, built around the free movement of its citizens, capital, goods and services, is now home to 450 million people from diverse ethnic, cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

The importance of encouraging societal and individual multilingualism in the European Union was rehearsed in the Commission Communication 'Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: an Action Plan 2004 - 2006’[1]. The ability to understand and communicate in languages other than their mother tongue is a basic skill that all European citizens require. The further development of foreign language skills is important to encourage mobility within the Union[2]; it will contribute to the creation of a truly European labour market by allowing citizens to take full advantage of the freedom to work or study in another Member State. Furthermore, a labour force with practical language and intercultural skills enables European enterprise to compete effectively in the global market-place.

Learning and speaking other languages encourages a more open approach to others, their cultures and outlooks. In addition, learning other languages improves cognitive skills and strengthens mother tongue skills, including reading and writing. Learning one lingua franca alone is not enough. The Commission’s objective is a truly multilingual European society: a society in which the rate of individual multilingualism steadily increases until every citizen has practical skills in at least two languages in addition to his or her mother tongue.

Heads of State and Government in Barcelona in March 2002, having set the objective of making European Union education and training systems a world quality reference by 2010, called “ for further action … to improve the mastery of basic skills, in particular by teaching at least two foreign languages from a very early age…” [3] At the same time, they called for the “ establishment of a linguistic competence indicator in 2003. ”[4] This decision arose from the current lack of data on the actual language skills of people in the European Union and the need for reliable systems to measure progress towards this new objective.

2 Limitations of available data

The data that are currently available are limited to (a) input data, such as information about language teaching in schools, and (b) public opinion survey results.

The former, for example, show that the percentage of pupils in primary education learning a foreign language is increasing, that the range of languages taught at all ages is extremely narrow, and that the diversity of languages on offer is decreasing; there is a growing tendency for ‘foreign language learning’ to mean simply ‘learning English’.

The average number of foreign languages learned in secondary education is far from the target set by the Barcelona European Council of two foreign languages from a very early age[5], as is shown in the table below.


These input data, though valuable, do not give a complete picture of the state of language teaching. They say nothing, for example, about pupils’ communicative competencies.

The Adult Education Survey, currently being developed by Eurostat and due to be carried out in countries during 2006, will include a module in which respondents self-report their language skills on the scales of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. The AES will be repeated every 5 years. This survey will provide valuable contextual data on adult citizens’ assessments of their own language skills; it is not designed, however, to provide an objective assessment of language skills.

Until this data becomes available, the only other information currently available on foreign language skills is from Eurobarometer opinion surveys which asked respondents to assess their own skills, and are therefore of limited reliability. As an example, data from standard Eurobarometers for which fieldwork took place in 2001 gives the following picture.


The data seem to suggest a “languages gap”, in that language skills are unevenly spread across countries, perhaps indicating the relative importance which society in different Member States attaches to language learning. And yet learning a foreign language is already part of curricula in all Member States, and represents a real effort by authorities, teachers and pupils, in all countries.[6] This would seem to suggest that, if this gap is to be reduced, not only will more languages have to be learnt, but they will have to be learnt more effectively.

There is, therefore, some way to go before every citizen has the language and intercultural skills necessary to benefit from citizenship of the European Union, and before Member States have implemented the request of their Heads of State and Government for all pupils to learn at least two foreign languages from an early age.

3 Need for more reliable data

Progress towards this objective can only be measured using reliable data on the outcomes of foreign language teaching and learning; this data needs to be based upon objective tests of language ability. Analysis of such data should facilitate a more productive comparison of language policies, and language teaching methods between Member States, with a view to identifying and sharing good practice.

At the European Council meeting in Barcelona, Heads of State and Government called for the establishment of a European Indicator of Language Competence.

Such an Indicator will represent a major methodological advance; it will make valid and reliable data available to policy makers, teachers and language learners. The final objective is to provide Member States with hard data on which any necessary adjustments in their approach to foreign language teaching and learning can be based.

This Indicator should also be seen in the context of the range of indicators that Member States have agreed to develop through the ‘Education and Training 2010’ process.


The Action Plan 'Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity' commits the Commission to developing such an Indicator. The Commission has taken forward this activity on a consensual basis with Member States’ representatives, namely the Expert Working Groups on Languages and on Indicators and Benchmarks, with which it has held detailed discussions concerning the principles that should underlie this indicator.

It has now come to the point where a certain number of choices have to be made concerning the overall parameters of the indicator, the approach to be adopted in a first cycle of data gathering, and management arrangements.

The Commission’s proposed approach is set out below.


1 Purpose

The purpose of the indicator is to measure overall foreign language competencies in each Member State.

It should have high levels of accuracy and reliability; political acceptance will follow.

In line with other similar international indicators, data should be gathered at regular intervals, e.g. cycles of three years.

2 Method

There being no existing standardised survey of language skills across the Union, it is proposed to respond to the Barcelona Council’s call ‘to improve the mastery of basic skills in particular by teaching at least two foreign languages from a very early age’ via the administration of specially developed tests of competence to a sample of pupils in education and training establishments in all Member States. In the construction of the tests, the results of relevant previous Commission-funded projects will be taken into account in order to ensure an optimal use of resources. This method does not cover the full scope of language skills of the adult population as a whole, but methodological difficulties and the complexity and cost of the administration of the tests to such a population make this approach difficult at this stage.

3 Target Group

In the light of the Barcelona Council’s call “ … to improve the mastery of basic skills, in particular by teaching at least two foreign languages from a very early age …”, it is appropriate that data for the indicator be gathered from pupils at the end of compulsory education or training, by which stage all basic learning objectives should have been reached.

There is a wide variety of school-leaving ages in the Union. For other international indicators and tests (such as PISA), the compromise age of 15 is usually adopted. This seems to the Commission to be the appropriate choice for this indicator also.

It is proposed that data should be gathered from students aged 15.

4 Scale

The indicator should record the proficiency of the sample at each of the six levels of the scales of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe)[7]. This is already widely accepted and used by several Member States for determining their own benchmarks in this area.

5 Languages

In line with the Barcelona Council’s wishes, for each candidate in the sample, the indicator should measure skills in at least two languages other than mother tongue.

In principle, the indicator should measure skills in all the main first or second foreign languages in education and training systems. The Commission proposes that in the first round, and for practical reasons, foreign language competence should be tested in the five languages most frequently taught in the Union as a whole (i.e. English, French, German, Spanish and Italian[8]). Experience gained during the first cycle of tests should permit a wider range of languages to be tested in subsequent cycles.

6 Skills

The indicator should measure four language skills: reading, listening, speaking and writing. It may be, that, (again, for practical reasons) speaking competences would not be tested in the first round; should this be the case, experience gained during the first cycle of tests should permit all four language skills to be tested in subsequent cycles.

7 Other data

It is important for Member States to be able to contextualise the data in the Indicator. Often, language competence is affected by factors outside the education system (such as languages on TV, the home environment) as well as factors within the systems (such as the experience of the teacher, the total number of hours of language classes, etc). Tests should therefore be complemented by questionnaires to teachers and pupils to gather contextual information.

Management arrangements

8 Cooperation

The Commission is committed to fulfilling the mandate given to it by the European Council. It is also clear that this Indicator will be important for Member States; it will provide a rich source of new data that can inform decisions about the policy and practice of teaching foreign languages and enable good practice to be shared. Member States also have a rich experience in the development of international indicators, which should be utilised to the full. The Commission believes that Member States should therefore be fully involved in development and implementation of the Indicator.

As regards the central coordination of the process, and the central analysis of the material provided, this will be carried out by the Commission with external support provided through a contract tendered under normal procedures.

However, the Commission will need support and advice from Member States in preparing this tender, in supervising the subsequent contract, in determining the most appropriate approach to the administration of tests in Member States and in the implementation of the Indicator generally.

A structure will be needed whose members have the authority of their Member States to advise the Commission on such policy and technical matters, and to report progress on the implementation of the Indicator in their Member State. Current groups of experts do not have the necessary mandate, nor the necessary technical expertise in language testing or the development of indicators to do this.

9 European Indicator of Language Competence Advisory Board

The Commission therefore proposes to establish an Advisory Board of representatives of Member States (the “EILC Advisory Board”) with the following role:

- advising the Commission on the specification of the tender for the creation of the testing instruments, and the criteria for the selection of the tenderer;

- advising the Commission on the assessment of the work of the contractor;

- advising on appropriate arrangements, standards and technical protocols for data gathering activities in Member States;

- securing good progress on the implementation in Member States;

- monitoring results.

The practical actions necessary to implement the data gathering will be taken by Member States, (or by competent authorities within Member States such as Offices of Statistics), within the protocols and standards set by the Commission on the advice of the Advisory Board. These actions will include:

- organising the participation of a sample of institutions;

- distributing the testing material to invigilators and making practical arrangements for the tests to take place;

- collecting the responses and arranging for them to be marked according to the central standards;

- passing the resulting data to the central coordinator.

The Commission will therefore establish the Advisory Board when Council has indicated that it supports the approach outlined here and will invite each Member State to nominate one representative to it.

10 Resource implications

An estimate for central costs has been made (based upon the central costs for PISA). Accordingly, the appropriate resources been approved within the budgets of the Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci programmes in 2005; similar sums will be made available in 2006 and the Commission has proposed that such costs from the year 2007 onwards should be covered by the new programme in the field of Life Long Learning.

Concerning estimates of the Member State resources required, these will clearly depend upon the methodology finally chosen in consultation with representatives of Member States. However, the functions set out above will necessarily involve costs. An indication of these can be gained by referring to the relevant national budgets for PISA.

11 Timing

The Commission wishes to call the first meeting of the EILC Advisory Board before the end of 2005, to issue the tender for central coordination of the Indicator in spring 2006, and to organise a first pilot exercise to test the proposed testing instruments in 2007.


The European Indicator of Language Competence has a value of its own. It will tell us more about the multilingual capacities of young Europeans that we know at present, or than we can find out in any other way. But it is, at the same time, a symbol of more. When the Barcelona European Council called for the establishment of the indicator, it also observed that the teaching of at least two foreign languages from a very early age was an important part of the basic skills – part of the birthright of all European citizens. In this sense, the European Council underlined that the Union is home to people of many cultures and languages; and that learning them is part of being European.

The Commission invites the Council to express its agreement with the approach outlined in this Communication for the implementation of the European Indicator of Language Competence, so that preparatory work can go ahead at appropriate speed. An expression of Council support before the end of this year is essential to the timetable.



The European Indicator of Language Competence – Implementation


Domaine(s) politique(s) concerné(s) et activité(s) associée(s):

Education et culture

Culture et langues


3.1 Lignes budgétaires (lignes opérationnelles et lignes connexes d'assistance technique et administrative (anciennes lignes BA)), y compris leurs intitulés: Socrates Leonardo da Vinci

puis, à partir de 2007, la ligne budgétaire qui correspondra au programme Lifelong Learning dont la proposition de décision a été adoptée par la Commission en juillet 2004.

3.2 Durée de l'action et de l'incidence financière:

L’action débutera en 2005 ; elle pourrait avoir un caractère permanent ; elle durera au minimum 3 ans.

3.3 Caractéristiques budgétaires (ajouter des lignes le cas échéant):

Ligne budgétaire | Nature de la dépense | Nouvelle | Participation AELE | Participation pays candidats | Rubrique PF | Socrates | DNO | CD | NON | OUI | OUI | N° 3 | Leonardo da Vinci | DNO | CD | NON | OUI | OUI | N° 3 |


4.1 Ressources financières

4.1.1 Article Récapitulatif des crédits d'engagement (CE) et des crédits de paiement (CP)

millions d'euros (à la 3 ème décimale)

Nature de la dépense | Section n° | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 et suiv. | Total |

Dépenses opérationnelles[9] |

Crédits d'engagement (CE) | 8.1 | a | pm | pm | pm | pm | pm | pm | pm |

Crédits de paiement (CP) | b | pm | pm | pm | pm | pm | pm | pm |

Dépenses administratives incluses dans le montant de référence[10] |

Assistance technique et administrative – ATA (CND) | 8.2.4 | c | - | - | - | - |


Crédits d'engagement | a+c | pm | pm | pm | pm | pm | pm | pm |

Crédits de paiement | b+c | pm | pm | pm | pm | pm | pm | pm |

Dépenses administratives non incluses dans le montant de référence[11] |

Ressources humaines et dépenses connexes (CND) | 8.2.5 | d | 0,054 | 0,108 | 0,108 | 0,108 | 0,108 | 0,108 | 0,594 |

Frais administratifs autres que les ressources humaines et coûts connexes, hors montant de référence (CND) | 8.2.6 | e | 0,086 | 0,086 | 0,086 | 0,086 | 0,086 | 0,086 | 0,516 |

Total indicatif du coût de l'action

TOTAL CE y compris coût des ressources humaines | a+c+d+e | 0,140 | 0,194 | 0,194 | 0,194 | 0,194 | 0,194 | 1,110 |

TOTAL CP y compris coût des ressources humaines | b+c+d+e | 0,140 | 0,194 | 0,194 | 0,194 | 0,194 | 0,194 | 1,110 |


La mise sur pied de l'indicateur n'entraînera pas de dépense opérationnelle supplémentaire à charge du budget de l'Union: les dépenses correspondantes seront supportées par les programmes Socrates et Leonardo da Vinci (puis Lifelong Learning) sans augmentation des dotations globales de ces programmes; de là la mention "pm" reprise ci-dessus. Pour information, la contribution annuelle de ces programmes au financement de l'indicateur devrait être globalement de l'ordre de 2,5 MioEUR.

Détail du cofinancement

Néant. Il n'y aura pas de cofinancement des dépenses centrales impliquées par ce projet (les Etats membres ne prendront en charge que les dépenses, décentralisées, d'administration des enquêtes).

4.1.2 Compatibilité avec la programmation financière

( Proposition compatible avec la programmation financière existante.

( Cette proposition nécessite une reprogrammation de la rubrique concernée des perspectives financières.

( Cette proposition peut nécessiter un recours aux dispositions de l'accord interinstitutionnel[12] (relatives à l'instrument de flexibilité ou à la révision des perspectives financières).

The appropriations from 2007 are subject to the approval of the next financial programming period.

4.2.3 Incidence financière sur les recettes

( Proposition sans incidence financière sur les recettes

( Incidence financière - L'effet sur les recettes est le suivant:

4.2 Ressources humaines FTE (y compris fonctionnaires, personnel temporaire et externe) - voir détail sous le point 8.2.1.

Besoins annuels | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 et suiv. |

Total des effectifs de ressources humaines | 0,5 | 1,0 | 1,0 | 1,0 | 1,0 | 1,0 |


Des précisions relatives au contexte de la proposition sont exigées dans l'exposé des motifs. La présente section de la fiche financière doit contenir les éléments d'information complémentaires ci-après:

5.1 Réalisation nécessaire à court ou à long terme

L'action vise à court terme l'élaboration de l’indicateur européen de compétence linguistique qui a été demandé par le Conseil européen de Barcelone de 2002. L’existence de ce nouvel indicateur comblera une vide que les états membre ont constaté.

5.2 Valeur ajoutée de l'implication communautaire, compatibilité de la proposition avec d'autres instruments financiers et synergie éventuelle

L’implication communautaire permettra la coordination d’un travail en commun des États Membre pour la mise en œuvre d’un projet qui a été demandé par les chefs d’État et de Gouvernement. L’approche proposée à été choisie parce qu’elle implique un équilibre efficace et performant entre une action décentralisée et hétérogène, et une action complètement centralisée.

5.3 Objectifs, résultats escomptés et indicateurs connexes de la proposition dans le cadre de la gestion par activités (ABM)

L’action proposée contribuera à l’objectif "Promouvoir la diversité linguistique". Il s'agit de promouvoir la diversité linguistique et l’apprentissage des langues par la mise en oeuvre d'une stratégie communautaire et des actions linguistiques dans les programmes d'éducation et de formation, afin d'améliorer quantitativement et qualitativement les connaissances de langues dans l'Union européenne.

Les résultats escomptés seront la définition d’un nouvel indicateur de compétence en langues et la création de tests de langue et la récolte de données pour alimenter cet indicateur. Les tests seront administrés à un échantillon quantitatif et représentatif dans chaque pays, afin de mesurer son niveau de compétence en langues. Les compétences seront mesurées selon les 6 niveaux établis dans le Cadre Commun de Référence en Langues.

Les indicateurs principaux de la réussite de cette action seront :

- l'existence d'un système UE de tests pour recueillir les données sur les compétences en langues d’un échantillon d’élèves, dans chaque pays;

- l'existence et la qualité des données ainsi recueillies ; et

- à travers l’analyse de ces données, des comparaisons des ‘output’ et de l’efficacité des différents systèmes d’apprentissage de langues,

- permettant ainsi au états membres d’y apporter les réorientations nécessaires.

5.4 Modalités de mise en œuvre (indicatives) Indiquer ci-dessous la (les) modalité(s) [13] de mise en œuvre choisie(s).

( Gestion centralisée

( directement par la Commission

( indirectement par délégation à:

( des agences exécutives,

( des organismes créés par les Communautés, tels que visés à l'article 185 du règlement financier,

( des organismes publics nationaux/organismes avec mission de service public.

( Gestion partagée ou décentralisée

( avec des Etats membres

( avec des pays tiers

( Gestion conjointe avec des organisations internationales (à préciser)


La proposition de la Commission est que la coordination centrale soit assurée par la Commission (et donc que les coûts centraux, notamment les coûts de réunions du Board et les coûts de la création de tests, de la coordination de leur correction, de l’établissement des données finales par pays et de l’indicateur lui-même soient couverts par le budget communautaire). Les tâches d’administration des tests dans un échantillon d’institutions dans tous les pays seront assurées par les États membres (et les coûts supportés par eux).

Cette fiche financière ne concerne que les coûts à charge du budget communautaire.


6.1 Système de contrôle

Selon les procédures appliqués pour les programmes Socrates et Leonardo da Vinci.

6.2 Évaluation

6.2.1 Évaluation ex-ante

Cette proposition répond au constat des Chefs d’État et de Gouvernement lors du Conseil européen de Barcelone que l’Union ne possède pas de données fiables sur les compétences linguistiques de ses citoyens et à sa demande relative à l’établissement d’un Indicateur Européen de Compétences Linguistiques.

Une étude élaborée par un consultant externe a confirmé la non-existence de tests en langues adaptés pour être utilisés pour recueillir les données requises à l'échelle européenne[14]

La proposition a été rédigée suite à des discussions détaillées avec le groupe d’experts nationaux en matière de langues et avec le groupe d’experts nationaux en matière d'Indicateurs et Benchmarks.

6.2.2 Mesures prises suite à une évaluation intermédiaire/ex-post (leçons tirées des expériences antérieures similaires)

Aucune évaluation intermédiaire n’existe à présent.

6.2.3 Conditions et fréquence des évaluations futures

Les résultats de cette action seront pris en compte et communiqués notamment dans le contexte des futurs rapports sur le processus ‘Éducation et Formation 2010’.


Selon les procédures appliquées pour les programmes Socrates et Leonardo da Vinci.



Crédits d'engagement en millions d'euros (à la 3 ème décimale)

2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 et suiv. |

Fonctionnaires ou agents temporaires[15] (XX 01 01) | A*/AD | 0,25 | 0,5 | 0,5 | 0,5 | 0,5 | 0,5 |

B*, C*/AST | 0,25 | 0,5 | 0,5 | 0,5 | 0,5 | 0,5 |

Personnel financé[16] par art. XX 01 02 |

Autres effectifs financés[17] par art. XX 01 04/05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

TOTAL | 0,5 | 1,0 | 1,0 | 1,0 | 1,0 | 1,0 |

Note: ces ressources humaines additionnelles sont prévues par la décision APS 2006.

8.2.2 Description des tâches découlant de l'action

Gestion du Groupe d’experts des États membres (préparation des réunions, documents), gestion d’appels d’offres, conseils politiques.

8.2.3 Origine des ressources humaines (statutaires)

Lorsque plusieurs origines sont indiquées, veuillez indiquer le nombre de postes liés à chacune d'elles).

( Postes actuellement affectés à la gestion du programme à remplacer ou à prolonger

( Postes pré-alloués dans le cadre de l'exercice de APS/APB pour l'année 2006.

( Postes à demander lors de la prochaine procédure de APS/APB

( Postes à redéployer en utilisant les ressources existantes dans le service concerné (redéploiement interne)

( Postes nécessaires pour l'année n mais non prévus dans l'exercice de APS/APB de l'exercice concerné

8.2.4 Autres dépenses administratives incluses dans le montant de référence (XX 01 04/05 – Dépenses de gestion administrative)

millions d'euros (à la 3 ème décimale)

Ligne budgétaire (n° et intitulé) | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 et suiv. | TOTAL |

1. Assistance technique et administrative (comprenant les coûts de personnel afférents) |

Agences exécutives[18] |

Autre assistance technique et administrative |

- intra muros |

- extra muros |

Total assistance technique et administrative | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

8.2.5 Coût des ressources humaines et coûts connexes non inclus dans le montant de référence millions d'euros (à la 3 ème décimale)

Type de ressources humaines | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 et suiv. |

Fonctionnaires et agents temporaires (XX 01 01) | 0,054 | 0,108 | 0,108 | 0,108 | 0,108 | 0,108 |

Personnel financé par art. XX 01 02 (auxiliaires, END, personnel intérimaire, etc.) (indiquer la ligne budgétaire) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

Coût total des ressources humaines et coûts connexes (NON inclus dans le montant de référence) | 0,054 | 0,108 | 0,108 | 0,108 | 0,108 | 0,108 |

Calcul – Fonctionnaires et agents temporaires

Se référer au point 8.2.1 le cas échéant

Application du forfait de 108 kEUR par homme/an.

Calcul - Personnel financé par article XX 01 02

Se référer au point 8.2.1 le cas échéant


Autres dépenses administratives non incluses dans le montant de référence

millions d'euros (à la 3ème décimale)

2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 et suiv. | TOTAL |

XX 01 02 11 01 – Missions |

XX 01 02 11 02 – Réunions et conférences | 0,086 | 0,086 | 0,086 | 0,086 | 0,086 | 0,086 | 0,516 |

XX 01 02 11 03 - Comités[19] |

XX 01 02 11 04 - Études et consultations |

XX 01 02 11 05 - Systèmes d'information |

2. Total autres dépenses de gestion (XX 01 02 11) |

3. Autres dépenses de nature administrative (préciser en indiquant la ligne budgétaire) |

Total des dépenses administratives autres que ressources humaines et coûts connexes (NON inclus dans le montant de référence) | 0,086 | 0,086 | 0,086 | 0,086 | 0,086 | 0,086 | 0,516 |

Les besoins en ressources humaines et administratives seront couverts à l’intérieure de la dotation allouée à la DG gestionnaire dans le cadre de la procédure d’allocation annuelle.

Calcul - Autres dépenses administratives non incluses dans le montant de référence:

Montant retenu pour les réunions du comité consultatif (Board de représentants des Etats membres):

4 réunions par an * 25 participants (un par EM) * 860 EUR

[1] COM (2003) 449 final

[2] Action 18 of the Commission's Action Plan for skills and mobility (COM (2002) 72 final) calls for the development of language and cross-cultural learning skills as part of a lifelong learning scheme in all Member States.

[3] Barcelona European Council, 15 and 16 March 2002, Presidency Conclusions, part I, 43.1

[4] (Ibid)

[5] Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe. (Eurydice, 2005 ; ISBN 92 894 8681-3)

[6] Eurydice, 2005 op. cit

[7] Common European Framework of Reference for Languages : Learning, teaching, assessment ; Cambridge University Press 2001 ; ISBN 0 521 80313 6

[8] Eurydice, 2005 op. cit; pages 47 - 52

[9] Dépenses ne relevant pas du Chapitre xx 01 du Titre xx concerné.

[10] Dépenses relevant de l'article xx 01 04 du Titre xx.

[11] Dépenses relevant du Chapitre xx 01, sauf articles xx 01 04 et xx 01 05.

[12] Voir points 19 et 24 de l'accord interinstitutionnel.

[13] Si plusieurs modalités sont indiquées, veuillez donner des précisions dans la partie «Remarques» du présent point.

[14] Report « Language Skills Indicator » by Anne West, Professor of Education Policy, Centre for Educatinal Research, Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science 2003

[15] Dont le coût n'est PAS couvert par le montant de référence.

[16] Dont le coût n'est PAS couvert par le montant de référence.

[17] Dont le coût est inclus dans le montant de référence.

[18] Il convient de mentionner la fiche financière se rapportant spécifiquement à l'agence/aux agences exécutive(s) concernée(s).

[19] Préciser le type de comité ainsi que le groupe auquel il appartient.