WRITTEN QUESTION E-1617/00 by Francesco Turchi (UEN) and Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission. Irregularities involving NGOs supplying aid to Kosovo.
Date: 2000-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Kosovo, dissemination of information, fraud, humanitarian aid, non-governmental organisation, report

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/31

These activities will lead to a range of harmonised test protocols concerning the carcinogenic capacity of
man-made vitreous fibres.

(1) Commission Directive 97/69/EC of 5 December 1997 adapting to technical progress for the 23rd time Council
Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ L 343, 13.12.1997).

(2001/C 113 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1602/00

by Cecilia Malmstr(cid:246)m (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Subsidiarity principle

The Treaty of Amsterdam, which entered into force on 1 May 1999, has annexed to it a protocol on the
application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The protocol clarifies and lays down
further criteria for the application and observance of those principles. Has the introduction of this protocol
led to any changes in the Commission and in the working methods of its officials and, if so, what changes
have taken place to ensure that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are observed?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2000)

The Commission has organised itself internally to take account of the protocol on the application of the
principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. This protocol takes up the essentials of the guidelines drawn
up at the 1992 Edinburgh European Council, which the Commission has always endeavoured to fully
respect.

From July 1998 new internal guidelines were presented and distributed to Commission departments, which
aimed to define more clearly what action should be taken in the light of the information given in the
protocol.

These instructions have brought results which can be seen,
in Commission departments
giving clearer explanations for planned Community action in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and
proportionality.

in particular,

(2001/C 113 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1617/00

by Francesco Turchi (UEN) and Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Irregularities involving NGOs supplying aid to Kosovo

(29 May 2000)

According to authoritative news reports, the Commission has in its possession a detailed report revealing
how numerous humanitarian NGOs sprung up suddenly in Europe and Albania during the war in Kosovo
and vanished without trace when the conflict ended. These organisations apparently used the cover of aid
operations to smuggle urgently needed goods and products, paid for by governments and international
donors, and sell them on the black market. In some cases, humanitarian aid was used as a front for arms
trafficking by the KLA. The report was drawn up by the Customs Assistance Mission (CAM) in cooperation
with the Albanian authorities and was funded by the Commission. The report highlights the serious
irregularities affecting more than 40 % of
the NGOs and cases of bodies run directly by criminal
organisations, which resulted in a massive fraud to the detriment of Kosovan refugees and a decline in
regular exports to Albania, which fell by more than 60 % during the period concerned. The report is in the

C 113 E/32

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

possession of the Commission(cid:146)s DG XXI, according to a statement by its Director, Mr de Graaf (letter of
23 March 2000 to Italian journalist Fausto Biloslavo), and is being held back on the grounds that it is the
responsibility of the Albanian authorities. For their part, the Albanian authorities say that it is the
European Community(cid:146)s Customs Assistance Mission which is responsible (reply from Director of Albanian
Customs, Petrit Ago).

In the light of the above considerations:

1. Will the Commission make this report public?

2. Will it inform the competent bodies of the European Parliament in good time?

3. Will it say what plausible grounds there may be for holding back this report?

4. What action does it intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

1. and 3.
The report mentioned by the Honourable Members was established by a joint working group
of Albanian customs officials assisted by experts of the Customs assistance mission in Albania (CAM-A), a
programme which is financed by the Community. The joint working group was formed at the formal
request of the Albanian Minister of finance with the purpose of carrying out the study. The report was
delivered to Mr Ago, the Albanian Director general of Customs, on 29 February 2000. The report is the
property of the Albanian authorities, and as such it is a matter for them to decide whether it should be
made available. The Commission has received a copy of the report and the European Anti-Fraud Office
(OLAF) is aware of it.

2.
As the Honourable Members are aware, the Commission and the Parliament have concluded an inter-
institutional agreement establishing rules on the transmission of documents between the two institutions.
The Commission is seeking the approval of
to deliver the report. The
Commission will keep the Honourable Members informed of any developments in this sense.

the Albanian Government

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to the reply given to Written Question

4.
E-1367/00 by Mrs Muscardini (1).

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001.

(2001/C 113 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1647/00

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) and Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Compliance with the Seveso Directive

(29 May 2000)

The Seveso Directive is important with regard to the environmental protection and safety standards
required of undertakings.

1.
Does the Seveso Directive lay down the maximum number of potentially hazardous sites which may
be located in any one area? If so, how is this limitation defined (standards, density etc)? If not, is there no
limit at all to the number of potentially hazardous sites in any one area?

2.
Is the Commission aware of any areas in the Belgian Federation where the maximum number of
potentially hazardous sites has been exceeded? If so, in which areas and zones in the Belgian Federation? If
not, will the Commission investigate whether the maximum number of potentially hazardous sites in any
one area has been exceeded in the Belgian Federation?