WRITTEN QUESTION E-1853/00 by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission. Funds for Turkey.
Date: 2000-06-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Kurdistan question, Türkiye

C 72 E/132

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

There is therefore considerable variation in the way in which State health care systems are organised in the
Community. For example, certain Member States have opted for a system of direct provision of health
benefits in kind without financial consideration from the patient (for example,
in Germany and the
Netherlands), while other systems provide medical services and products in return for payment by the
patient, followed by reimbursement by his health insurance fund according to a corresponding scale (e.g.
Belgium and France). Each Member State is also free to choose the range of health care and medical
products that are provided or reimbursed on its territory.

However, Community law must be complied with in the exercise of this power that has remained in
national hands. Mention should be made in this connection of the existence of Council Regulation (EEC)
574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the
application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the
Community (1), which coordinates the statutory social security schemes of the Member States in order to
provide effective protection to persons who move within the Community.

These regulations guarantee, in particular, that all citizens who have the nationality of a Member State
other than the Member State in which they reside enjoy the same rights as citizens of that Member State.
They also lay down the conditions relating to the reimbursement of medical expenses whenever a person
requires medical care during a temporary stay in a Member State other than the one in which he is insured
or whenever a person moves with the specific aim of receiving care in another Member State. If the
conditions laid down in Community regulations are met, notably the proof of entitlement to health care in
the State of affiliation, which generally issues an E 111 or E 112 form, any Community citizen may receive
care provided under the legislation of the Member State in which he resides, payable by the State in which
he is insured.

Belgium is therefore entitled to require all recipients of medical care on its territory to pay the costs of
such care, which will, in principle, be reimbursed to them under the scale laid down in Belgian legislation.

(1) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972 (cid:129) Most recent consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996

(OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).

(2001/C 72 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1853/00

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Funds for Turkey

What proportion of the total funds earmarked for Turkey under the MEDA programme and the European
strategy for Turkey has been spent in sectors such as education, health, the environment, promotion of
civil society, human rights and protection of minorities in the south-east (Kurdish) region of Turkey?

What checks are carried out in order to ensure that the money is in fact spent on the identified projects
and is the Commission satisfied by the degree of local consultation with the Kurdish people in connection
with framing and implementation of the projects?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Within the framework of the MEDA I programme (1996-1999), the Commission has committed a total of
€ 376 million for Turkey. The Commission(cid:146)s policy is to focus its interventions on the most disadvantaged
groups in society, such as women, children and minorities. Thus, a substantial proportion of the sums
committed to Turkey have been allocated to projects which are (cid:145)gender-centric(cid:146) (for example, funding
family-planning centres) and which are implemented in those regions which suffer from the greatest
(cid:145)development deficit(cid:146), such as the south-east (for example, a project to support basic education in the
south-eastern provinces).

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/133

The projects the Commission supports are designed to benefit the entire population of Turkey. However, it
is only natural that projects which focus on the south-east of the country and on the poorest sections of
Turkish society are likely to have most impact on Kurdish communities (which tend to be poorer and are
principally to be found in these areas). A large part of the funds committed to date are destined for
projects of this kind.

The Commission would also like to point out that in 1997 it had hoped to fund a rural development
project in south-east Turkey, but Parliament issued a negative opinion on the proposal.

The priority accorded to the most disadvantaged groups (women, children and minorities) has been
reaffirmed in the financial aid programme for Turkey for the period 2000-2002, both in the context of the
MEDA II programme, and in the European Strategy regulations.

Project proposals are identified (cid:145)in the field(cid:146), and care is taken to consult with all concerned persons and
organisations, as well as with civil society. The preparation and administration of the projects are
monitored on a daily basis by the Commission and its representation in Ankara, so as to ensure that the
terms of reference are respected, with regard both to objectives and to target populations. An independent
audit is carried out whenever a project is completed.

(2001/C 72 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1854/00

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: International Criminal Court (ICC)

(9 June 2000)

In the context of the CFSP, what joint standpoint are the Member States adopting with regard to the US
proposals to amend the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) in order, for
example,
individuals who
(cid:145)act within the overall direction(cid:146) of a State, to allow the court to enter into agreements with individual
states, and to permit the negotiation of a (cid:145)supplemental document(cid:146) which would have the effect of radically
amending the Rome Statute?

their own citizens from being tried by the court,

to prevent

to exempt

Do the Member States and the Commission, acting in concert under the CFSP, agree that it is vital to work
to convince the US that it is in interests to support and sign the existing Statute and resist any attempt to
undermine the integrity of the Statute, which already has 96 signatories and has been ratified by eight
countries?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2000)

The Commission agrees that it would be very valuable if the United States were able to participate fully in
the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Community has carefully analysed the United States(cid:146) proposal
on the rules of procedure for the court and has come to the conclusion that the text in its present form
would lead to an unacceptable modification of the key provisions of the Statute related to the jurisdiction
of the Court.

The Community has raised this issue repeatedly in the framework of the Common foreign and security
policy dialogue between the Community and the United States. On 31 May 2000 at the Community/
United States summit, the member of the Commission responsible for foreign relations discussed the issue
with Secretary of State Mrs Albright. He indicated that the Community was ready to look at other
American proposals on the ICC but any such proposal could only be considered in the light of full respect
of the integrity of the Court(cid:146)s Statute. The Presidency has also recently informed American officials about
this position.