WRITTEN QUESTION E-1843/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council. EU sanctions and Austria (II).
Date: 2000-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, European Union membership, extreme right, international sanctions

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/97

(2001/C 89 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1842/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: EU sanctions and Austria (I)

This specious argument is clearly not in accordance with the facts, as Dr G(cid:252)nther Winkler, a respected
legal academic, has recently shown in his opinion (cid:145)Anatomy of an arbitrary European act(cid:146). The reasons for
his opinion are as follows:

The Presidency statement, sent as a diplomatic note to the highest bodies of state of Austria and to the
Portuguese foreign minister, bears the hallmarks (cid:129) both under national and European law (cid:129) of an official
act of the EU. Although it is written on the headed paper of the President of Portugal, the issuing body is
stated to be the Presidency of the European Union. In other words, it is issued not by a national but by a
European Community body.

In addition, Dr Winkler points in his opinion to a whole series of shortcomings in the Council(cid:146)s sanctions
policy.

Will the Council continue to seek for arguments to pursue its policy, which is devoid of any legal basis, or
will it not rather consider it helpful to work towards the normalisation of relations with Austria?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The Council has not adopted a position on this matter and consequently is unable to reply to the
Honourable Member(cid:146)s question.

(2001/C 89 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1843/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: EU sanctions and Austria (II)

Indeed there was no call to doubt Mr Sch(cid:252)ssel(cid:146)s European-mindedness. However, it is a grotesque situation
if a country like Austria is forced to testify several times to its pro-European stance. The continuing refusal
of the 14 other Member States to enter into a dialogue with Austria is poisoning the European ideal of
civilised cooperation.

In spite of Austria(cid:146)s very restrained and cooperative attitude so far, Portugal cannot see itself altering its
policy towards Austria. The Portuguese Presidency is not (cid:129) according to press reports (cid:129) reckoning on the
sanctions by 14 Member States against Austria being lifted at the EU summit in June. It said there was no
reason to alter its policy towards Austria.

In July France will take over the Council Presidency from Portugal. The French Minister for European
Affairs, Pierre Moscovici, has already said that his government will not move away from the sanctions
against Austria.

At the same time, however, at the Foreign Ministers(cid:146) meeting in the Azores, it became clear that the EU
Member States are no longer united behind the sanctions imposed at the end of January. Representatives of
Finland, Spain, Ireland and Italy among others called for the position towards the government in Vienna to
be reconsidered.

C 89 E/98

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

That being so, does the Council intend (cid:129) given the helpful attitude of the Austrian government and the
doubts expressed by some Member States (cid:129) to abandon this senseless and uncivilised sanctions strategy?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The Council has not given its views on this subject and is therefore not in a position to reply to the
Honourable Member(cid:146)s question.

(2001/C 89 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1844/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: EU sanctions and Austria (IV)

In the opinion of many legal experts this statement lacks any legal basis. Furthermore these sanctions do
not merely cover (cid:145)bilateral affairs(cid:146), as is often speciously argued. They have an effect on the relations
between Member States and on their joint work, and thus on the Community as a whole.

The high-level representatives of the 14 Member States and the leaders of Austria clearly thought then that
if they acted quickly they could prevent the FP(cid:214) from joining the government. However, the statement
failed in its original purpose and has also significantly harmed the reputation of the European Union.

When will the Council finally come round to abandoning this counter-productive strategy which goes
against the ideals of the Community, repeal the statement and begin a productive dialogue with the
Republic of Austria (cid:129) which remains a reliable and trustworthy partner (cid:129) so that relations can be
normalised again?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The Council has not stated its position on this subject and is therefore unable to reply to the Honourable
Member(cid:146)s question.

(2001/C 89 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1850/00

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Foie gras in ducks and geese

I understand that the report on Welfare Aspects of the Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese,
prepared for the European Commission by the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal
Welfare in 1998, concluded that the practice of force-feeding was detrimental to the welfare of birds. It
is also noted that alternative products made from the livers of non-force-fed animals are available on the
market. Under the Community(cid:146)s poultry-meat marketing rules, can these alternative products be sold as
foie gras? Are any measures to be taken to phase out the force-feeding of birds throughout the EU?