WRITTEN QUESTION E-2827/99 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission. Looting and trafficking in cultural objects of value in Kosovo.
Date: 2000-01-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European cooperation, Kosovo, heritage protection

C 280 E/140

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.10.2000

irrespective of future accession to the Community, both Hungary, the Slovak Republic and the Czech
Republic are parties to the Basel Convention on transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their
safe disposal and are therefore bound by the control procedures of the Convention as outlined notably in
its Articles 4 to 9.

in this case Hungary,

For the area of the Community, Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 transposes the provisions of the Basel
Convention. On the understanding that the shipment in question is an import of waste for disposal into
the Community, Articles 19 and 20 of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 are relevant. According to Article 19
(3), the export country,
is required to present a duly motivated request to the
authority of the importing Member State on the basis that it does not have and cannot reasonably acquire
the technical capacity and the necessary facilities in order to dispose of the waste in an environmentally
sound manner. Furthermore,
import into the Community presupposes notification to the authority of
destination, i.e. the Member State of import. According to Article 20 (6), the shipment may only be
effected after the notifier has received authorisation from the authority of destination, i.e., the Member
State in question. The authorisation may also be subject to transport conditions pursuant to Article 20 (5).
The Commission does not dispose of any information which would indicate that the relevant procedures
have not been respected for the imports in question.

The Commission as such does not exercise any control functions with regard to specific waste shipments
under the Regulation. The supervision and control procedures established by the Regulation and directly
applicable in the Member States are applied by the authorities designated by the Member States according
to Article 36 of the Regulation.

As noted above, the need to take account of the proximity principle in the case of waste imports into the
Community is reflected in Article 19 (3). This serves to transpose Article 4 (9) (a) of the Basel Convention
which balances the objective of proximity in waste disposal with the need for waste disposal
in an
environmentally sound manner.

The Commission does not have sufficient information on the case in question to enable it to assess
whether or not the disposal of the waste in question could have also taken place in Hungary in an
environmentally sound manner.

(2000/C 280 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2827/99

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Looting and trafficking in cultural objects of value in Kosovo

Press reports claim that instances of the looting of monuments in Kosovo and trafficking in valuable
objects stolen from them are constantly increasing in number, while no effort at all is being made to
protect and save them. Archaeological monuments dating from Hellenic and Roman times, monasteries
and churches containing priceless relics handed down through the centuries are now defenceless against
marauding looters. No effort has yet been made to track down the perpetrators or to protect monuments
from looting and there is, therefore, an immediate risk that priceless cultural objects will be destroyed or
disappear.

Has the Commission taken any action to protect the monuments of Kosovo, which form part of the
European cultural heritage, and what steps does it intend to take in the future to stamp out the trafficking
in such objects?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2000)

The Commission recognises the importance of the cultural heritage in Kosovo. In the context of its
reconstruction programme in Kosovo (under the Obnova programme), activities in the cultural sector are

3.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 280 E/141

supported. Indeed, cultural activities are likely to be reinforced with the creation of the new Agency for
reconstruction of which the mandate also covers the reinforcement of cultural institutions.

In July 1999, the Commission launched a damage assessment mission in Kosovo (carried out by the
International management group), the terms of reference of which include the assessment of damage done
to cultural sites. The final report which has not yet been issued, will provide valuable input for the future
work of the Agency for reconstruction.

The combating of looting and trafficking of Kosovo(cid:146)s treasures does not fall within the Commission(cid:146)s
mandate in Kosovo. Matters of security are rather the responsibility of KFOR (the Kosovo Force) and, to a
certain extent of the United Nations interim administration in Kosovo (UNMIK). The extent to which the
trafficking is due to looting which was carried out prior to the end of the conflict in June 1999, or
whether this is a phenomenon since June 1999, is being examined.

(2000/C 280 E/152)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2829/99

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Policy competences under the Treaty of Amsterdam

As guardian of the Treaties, and in view of the need to illustrate the principle of subsidiarity in practical
terms, has the Commission at its disposal a detailed and comprehensible list of the various policy
competences as set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam, categorised according to the different powers enjoyed
by the EU and Member States in each policy area? If not, why not? If such a policy exists, could the
Commission make it available to the public?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

The Community institutions can exercise the powers conferred on them by the Treaty. Powers are
conferred on the Community depending on the objectives to be attained, not according areas of activity.
More specifically, according to Article 5 (former Article 3b) of the EC Treaty, the subsidiarity principle
applies only in areas which do not fall within the exclusive powers of the Community. The Treaty neither
defines the concept of exclusive powers, nor enumerates the areas it covers.

In its 1992 communication on the subsidiarity principle (1), the Commission sought to outline the areas of
exclusive powers, while stressing that they evolve depending on progress in European integration.

In the Commission view this approach is still valid, even following adoption of the protocol on the
application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty.

The protocol sets out a dynamic view of subsidiarity. It means that Community action can be extended
where circumstances require, within the limits, of course, of the objectives laid down in the Treaty.
Conversely, it can be terminated when action is no longer justified.

Consequently, the Union(cid:146)s powers are not set in stone. On the contrary, they are to be activated when
required and no action should be taken when there is no justification for it.

(1)

SEC(92) 1990 final.