WRITTEN QUESTION E-1999/00 by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Latvia: anti-Nazism.
Date: 2000-06-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Latvia, National Socialism, Second World War, accession negotiations, common foreign and security policy, ex-serviceman, imprisonment, war crime

C 89 E/124

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

Directive 2000/34/EC of 22 June 2000 amending Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the
organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that Directive (2) provides that
certain provisions of the amended Directive apply to mobile workers in the road, air, inland waterway and
lake transport and sea fishing sectors, namely the general provisions which guarantee adequate rest
periods, a maximum working week of 48 hours, four weeks annual paid holiday and health and safety
checks. The definition of working time has been left to the Member States.

The proposal for a specific Directive for road transport, submitted by the Commission in November 1998,
is currently being examined by the Council(cid:146)s subordinate bodies.

In addition, on 22 June 2000, the Commission submitted to the European Parliament and to the Council a
communication indicating the actions needed for the deployment of a global and coherent policy covering
such aspects as road safety and competition in the road transport sector, as well as the economic and
social aspects. The communication also covers the organisation of working time for drivers.

The Council has recently begun examining the communication against the background of the current
blockage of discussions on the proposal for a Directive.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation

relating to road transport (OJ L 380, 31.12.1985, p. 1).

(2) Not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

(2001/C 89 E/135)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1999/00

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Latvia: anti-Nazism

Vasili Kononov was 20 years old in 1943, and like many young Europeans at that time fought as
a partisan against the Nazi army occupying Latvia, and by the end of the war had won a number of
decorations.

Now in his late seventies, Kononov is currently in prison in Riga, accused of having killed nine civilians in
a partisan attack on a village 300 km away from the capital. The accusation is based on the testimony of
an eye-witness, Maria Kuznetsova, who has subsequently denied the version of events she gave in court
and claims that the bodies found in the village at the time were not civilians who had been killed by
partisans, but partisans who had been killed by Nazis.

Meanwhile another Latvian citizen, Konrad Kalejs, who used to be a member of a military unit known as
(cid:145)Arajs Kommando(cid:146) which collaborated with the Nazis, has been accused of the death of 30 000 Jews,
Communists and gypsies. After being discovered in London and expelled from the UK, he returned to
Australia, of which he has become a national, and went into hiding. The President of Latvia, Vaira Vika-
Friberga, has spoken to the international press of his reservations about the advisability of prosecuting the
former Nazi collaborator, commenting that he believes in divine retribution.

1.
Does the Council consider that the Latvian authorities(cid:146) conduct in relation to these two cases is
consistent with the values which form the basis of the European Union, to which Latvia is shortly due to
accede?

2.
Does the Council not consider that it should bring pressure to bear on the Latvian authorities to
ensure, firstly, that Kononov is released and, secondly, that his rights as a citizen and as an anti-Nazi ex-
combatant are upheld?

3.
Does the Council not consider that it should call on the Latvian authorities to make every effort to
track Kalejs down and ascertain what part he played in the genocide unleashed throughout Europe against
Jews, Roma and Communists?

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/125

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The Council takes every opportunity, particularly in the context of the accession process, to defend the
fundamental values on which the European Union is founded and which are enshrined in Article 6
(ex Article F) of the Treaty.

As far as Latvia is concerned, Article 2 of the Europe Agreement between that country and the Union,
which entered into force on 1 February 1998, states that (cid:145)Respect for democratic principles and human
rights, established by the Helsinki Final Act and in the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, as well as the
principles of market economy, inspire the domestic and external policies of the parties and constitute
essential elements of this Agreement(cid:146). The Association Council set up by the Europe Agreement is the
political body responsible for seeing that the Agreement is properly implemented, and in that role it may
examine any major issue or dispute arising in connection with the implementation or interpretation of the
Agreement.

Moreover, Latvia is taking part in the current accession process and, as one of the applicant countries, it
must observe well-established criteria, in particular the political criteria laid down by the European Council
in Copenhagen. In this context the Union has at its disposal two important instruments enabling it to
monitor observance of those criteria: firstly, the Accession Partnerships lay down a number of principles,
intermediate objectives and conditions for Latvia(cid:146)s accession to the Union. These include requirements
relating to guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of
minorities. Secondly, regular reports produced each year by the Commission enable the Council to follow
the progress achieved by Latvia on the road to accession. The last regular report from the Commission
found that Latvia fulfilled the Copenhagen political criteria, and in particular that it had stable institutions
guaranteeing democracy and the rule of law. That assessment was endorsed by the Helsinki European
Council, which would otherwise not have decided to open accession negotiations with Latvia. Nevertheless,
the Union will continue to monitor the situation in the applicant countries closely and will certainly take
appropriate action if there is evidence of violations of the fundamental principles referred to above.

(2001/C 89 E/136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2000/00

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: The (cid:145)Giardino zoologico di Napoli(cid:146) (Naples zoo) company

The (cid:145)Giardino zoologico di Napoli(cid:146) company has operated in Naples for the last 50 years, ever since the
town first acquired a zoo. A zoo is undoubtedly a cultural asset for a city of this size and importance,
especially as the nearest zoos are about 200 km away (Fasano (cid:129) zoo safari (cid:129) Rome). Its loss would be a
serious blow to those in the city who wish to use the zoo for educational as well as recreational purposes,
as has often been the case in recent times for schools and the university. The (cid:145)Giardino zoologico di
Napoli(cid:146) is a limited-liability company. Fifty years ago, it concluded a lease with the company owning the
vast site, the (cid:145)Mostra d(cid:146)Oltremare S.p.A(cid:146), the main shareholder in which was the commune of Naples. The
latter company declined to renew the lease, which expired in 1998, and successfully applied to have the
company evicted, although the execution of the order was deferred until this year. The various spurious
reasons cited do not constitute objective grounds for the lessor(cid:146)s failure to renew the lease. The Commune
of Naples, which is involved in this matter both as the major shareholder in Mostra d(cid:146)Oltremare S.p.A and
as the city(cid:146)s administrative authority, in which capacity it should be concerned with protecting Naples(cid:146)
cultural facilities, has not intervened even to propose an alternative site to which the zoo could be moved.
The zoo employs 18 people and accounts indirectly for the employment of various others; the future
prospects of
the 50 or so people whose jobs depend on the zoo are bleak, given the level of
unemployment in Naples. The outlook for the zoo(cid:146)s animals is not promising either.