WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1570/98 by Nel van DIJK to the Commission. Unanswered questions
Date: 1998-05-20
Institutions: European Parliament, VAN DIJK
Subjects: European Parliament, written question

19. 11. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 354/113

(98/C 354/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1570/98

by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission

(20 May 1998)

Subject: Unanswered questions

The deadline set in the European Parliament(cid:146)s Rules of Procedure for answers to the following questions has long
since expired. This is hampering my work as a Member of Parliament, since it prevents me from reacting quickly
to subjects of topical interest to members of the public. I still hope, however, to receive answers in the very near
future to the questions already put under Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure concerning:

›  equal opportunities in the internal market for gas and electricity (E-0341/98)

›  eavesdropping by MI6 and Echelon (E-1039/98 and E-1040/98)

›  economic espionage and State aid (E-1038/98)

›  possible fraud in connection with Dutch beef exports (P-1084/98)

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 1998)

The Commission does its best to meet the deadlines of three weeks (priority questions) and six weeks (other
questions), unilaterally set by Parliament in its procedures. Although on the whole it is not capable of responding
to priority questions (13% of answers in 1997) within three weeks, it answers other questions (87% in 1997)
around the six-week deadline (an average of 6 weeks and 1 day in 1997 and 5 weeks and 6 days in 1996).

The five questions referred to by the Honourable Member were answered on 5 May 1998 (question E 341/98),
15 May 1998 (three consecutive questions) and 8 May 1998 (priority question). The Commission wishes to make
it clear that three of the five questions were answered within Parliament(cid:146)s deadline.

(98/C 354/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1573/98

by Francisco Lucas Pires (PPE) and Carlos Costa Neves (PPE) to the Council

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Agreement  in  the  UN  between  the  British  Presidency  and  Indonesia  to  prevent  the  latter(cid:146)s  being

condemned on the grounds of violations of fundamental rights in Timor

On 23 April 1998 it was reported in the press that an agreement had been reached between the British Presidency
of  the  European  Union  and  Indonesia  at  the  United  Nations  in  Geneva  which  averted  a  vote  in  the  UN
Commission on Human Rights on a motion for a resolution, sponsored by 34 States, strongly condemning the
Jakarta Government.

What was the exact tenor of that agreement, what justification and guarantees were given and to what extent is
the refusal to condemn Indonesian action in Timor compatible with the commitment, reiterated in Amsterdam, to
safeguard the defence of fundamental rights as an objective of Union foreign policy?

Answer

(20 July 1998)

At the 54th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (Geneva, 16 March › 26 April 1998) agreement
was  reached  on  a  statement  to  be  read  out  by  the  CHR(cid:146)s  chairman,  ambassador  Selebi,  on  the  human  rights
situation in East Timor. The EU has made a direct contribution to drafting this Chairman(cid:146)s statement, which
reflects the consensus view of the CHR.