WRITTEN QUESTION P-2868/99 by Marco Pannella (TDI) to the Council. The cases of Mrs Flora Brovina, Mr Albin Kurti and Mr Ukshin Hoti.
Date: 2000-01-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Serbia and Montenegro, common foreign and security policy, forced disappearance, political prisoner, prison system

3.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 280 E/151

According to information from the Commission, pigeon races are organised through pigeon fanciers(cid:146)
associations, and it depends on a pigeon fancier(cid:146)s place of residence whether he can join one of these in a
region of Belgium or in the Netherlands. According to the Commission, the residence criterion for
membership of a pigeon fanciers(cid:146) association is intended to take account of the distances which pigeons
are required to fly during a competition.

We dispute this residence criterion. The border region is a single region. The distance which pigeons have
to fly is virtually the same if they are released, for example, from De Clinge in the Netherlands or De Klinge
in Belgium. We therefore wish pigeon fanciers who are resident in the Netherlands to be allowed to join
pigeon fanciers(cid:146) associations in Belgium and vice versa.

Will the Commission take the necessary measures to secure a lifting of the current ban? If so, how?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(29 February 2000)

According to the information available to the Commission and to the Honourable Member, the residence
criterion for membership of a pigeon fanciers(cid:146) association is laid down by both the Belgian Pigeon Fanciers(cid:146)
Federation and the Dutch Pigeon Fanciers(cid:146) Federation.

In this context, and regardless of whether the criterion is compatible or not with the principle of the
freedom to provide services laid down in Article 49 (ex-Article 59) of the EC Treaty (assuming that we are
dealing here with an economic activity), this situation does not seem to be attributable to the public
authorities of these two Member States.

The direct effect of Article 49 of the EC Treaty is that individuals can invoke it in national courts against
the Member State and the public authorities to prevent the application of a national regulation which is
contrary to the above principle. They can also invoke it against organisations which collectively regulate a
professional sector, which could include a federation which regulates an economic activity.

On the other hand, the Commission can institute proceedings under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the
EC Treaty only in respect of regulations laid down by the public authorities of a Member State. From a
formal point of view, therefore, the Commission does not have the power to respond to the Honourable
Member(cid:146)s request.

(2000/C 280 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2868/99

by Marco Pannella (TDI) to the Council

(10 January 2000)

Subject: The cases of Mrs Flora Brovina, Mr Albin Kurti and Mr Ukshin Hoti

Mrs Flora Brovina, a paediatrician and intellectual from Pristina, was arrested by the Belgrade authorities
for providing Kosovars with medical and food aid during the war. She was also accused of preparing
terrorist acts. She was initially detained in Lipljan prison in Kosovo, where she was repeatedly tortured,
and was then transferred to Serbia. During visits, she was not allowed to speak Albanian. She has a heart
condition and has difficulty in obtaining the necessary medicines. On 9 December 1999 Mrs Brovina was
sentenced to 12 years(cid:146) imprisonment for (cid:145)activities against the State(cid:146).

Mr Albin Kurti, a former representative of the Pristina Students Union, was brutally arrested on 28 April
1999 and is held in Pozarevac prison in Serbia. He is also accused of (cid:145)activities against the State(cid:146) and (cid:145)links
with a terrorist organisation(cid:146). Since he was deported to Serbia, the Serbian authorities have refused to
provide any information about him.

C 280 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.10.2000

Mr Ukshin Hoti, a university lecturer and leading Kosovar figure who was nominated for the EP(cid:146)s Sakharov
Prize in 1998, was sentenced to five years(cid:146) imprisonment in 1994. Although his prison sentence came to
an end last May, he is still missing. According to two concurrent testimonies, he was released from Lipljan
prison on 16 May 1999. However, his family have not received any official notification from the Belgrade
authorities. He may subsequently have been abducted and taken to Serbia.

Does the Council have more detailed information on the above cases?

What action has the Council taken, in particular at the United Nations and OSCE levels, with a view to the
speedy release of some 2000 Kosovar prisoners still held in Serbian prisons, and to obtaining all the
necessary information on the persons who have disappeared?

Reply

(13 March 2000)

The Council fully shares the Honourable Parliamentarian(cid:146)s concern over of the fate of the Kosovar
prisoners still held in Serbia and notably in the cases of Mrs Flora Brovina, Mr Albin Kurti and Mr Ukshin
Hoti. On the occasion of the 19 July 1999 General Affairs Council, Ministers called on the FRY to
guarantee the ICRC full access to these prisoners. The Council also called for the immediate release of
prisoners held without charges and to treat prisoners in accordance with applicable international standards.

After the 19 July GAC, the ICRC has been allowed access to Serbian jails by the Belgrade authorities. It has
so far identified 2000 Kosovo Albanian prisoners and might be in possession of updated information on
the whereabouts and the conditions of the prisoners mentioned by the Honourable Parliamentarian.

The Honourable Parliamentarian can be assured that the Council will continue to consider progress in
democratic freedoms and respect for the rights of minorities including the fate of the Kosovar prisoners as
the key element for an eventual lifting of sanctions targeting the Belgrade regime.

(2000/C 280 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2869/99

by FrØdØrique Ries (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Cost of sending letters from and within Belgium

A few months ago, a person wishing to send a standard-format letter from Belgium to France paid
17 francs, the same as for a letter within Belgium.

Now, however, the cost of sending a standard-format letter from Belgium to France has increased to
19 francs for a second-class letter and to 21 francs for a first-class letter. The cost of sending a letter within
Belgium is still 17 francs.

Does not the Commission feel that a competition issue is involved here, since it is more expensive to send
a letter within the Union than within a Member State?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2000)

Since 1 January 1999 the Belgian post office has in fact had different rates for domestic mail and for mail
going to other Member States.

The postal services directive (1) requires prices to be geared to costs. This principle can thus prompt a
postal authority to alter its rates in line with costs, especially when these differ between purely domestic
handling and cross-border mail. When approached, the Belgian post office offered this reason to justify the
rate alterations, especially in the light of its recent investments to improve the quality of cross-border mail
services.