WRITTEN QUESTION E-2287/00 by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Illegal arms dumps and armed incidents in Kosovo.
Date: 2000-07-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Kosovo, UNO, administrative structures, military equipment, statistics, stockpiling of weapons

C 113 E/80

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

Under Directive 85/337/EEC projects listed in Annex II should be made subject to an environmental
impact assessment (EIA) where Member States consider that their characteristics so require (Article 4,
paragraph 2). However, Member States are considered obliged to make at least a pre-assessment in order to
establish whether these projects need to be made subject to an EIA procedure. Under Directive 97/11/EC,
projects listed in Annex I are to be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

However, projects for which requests for development consent were submitted before 14 March 1999 are
in order to
governed by the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments. Therefore,
for
identify the correct Community law to be applied it
development consent was submitted.

is necessary to check when the request

In addition, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member the project appears to be
covered by Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention
and control (IPPC) (3). Under this Directive, it would have needed an updated IPPC permit based on the best
available technologies (BAT) if the construction of the incinerator may have (cid:145)significant negative effects on
human beings or the environment(cid:146) in the opinion of the competent authority i.e. the Lombardy region
(Article 2(10) and of the Directive). Therefore, in order to identify the correct application of this directive it
is necessary to check whether the Lombardy region considered the installation of the incinerator as a
(cid:145)substantial change(cid:146), and if so, which BAT based permit conditions were established in the authorization.

Not being aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member, the Commission will take the
appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about it and to ensure the observance of
Community law.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(2001/C 113 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2287/00

by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Illegal arms dumps and armed incidents in Kosovo

Having regard to the continuing uncertainty in Kosovo one year after the start of Operation Allied Force
and subsequent to my recent visit to Kosovo, the Council is asked to answer the following questions:

1. How many illegal arms dumps have been discovered by UNMIK or KFOR since June 1999 in Kosovo:

(cid:129) on the Albanian side, with what numbers of what weapons or other military equipment;

(cid:129) on the Serb side, with what numbers of what of weapons or other military equipment?

2. What intelligence has been gathered on the existence of yet other illegal arms dumps in Kosovo?

3. How many armed incidents resulting in woundings and killings have been registered:

(cid:129) on the Albanian side;

(cid:129) on the Serb side;

(cid:129) on the side of other ethnic minorities?

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/81

Reply

(20 November 2000)

The Council thanks the Honourable Member for his question and shares his concern at the discoveries of
illegal arms dumps and the number of armed incidents.

The Honourable Member is doubtless aware that the EU has no direct responsibility with regard to respect
for order and public safety in Kosovo. That is the task of the UNMIK Police Force and of KFOR, the
international armed force led by NATO on the basis of the mandate given by Security Council Resolution
1244. However, the EU Member States make an important contribution to both forces in terms of both
human resources and financial and technical assistance.

from its deployment

it collected more than 13 000 rifles,
KFOR claims that,
almost 2 500 pistols, 1 100 support weapons such as machine guns and mortars, more than 500 anti-
tank missiles, a number of anti-aircraft weapons, some 30 000 explosive devices and more than 7 500 000
rounds of ammunition. Each day it destroys some 200 weapons. Since that date there have been repeated
discoveries and confiscations of weapons, including inter alia the major discoveries made in four bunkers
near the village of Klecke on 21 June and in the Ferizaj/Urosevac region on 31 July.

to 25 April 2000,

The Council welcomes those successes, which will help to increase security in a region where attacks on
properties and persons are still frequent. The Council condemns the persistence of ethnic violence and
urges the leaders of all the communities to commit themselves wholeheartedly to combating that violence.

However, the Council does not have the aggregate figures which the Honourable Member has requested of
it for the total number of weapons confiscated or armed incidents.

(2001/C 113 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2292/00

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE), Ulla Sandb(cid:230)k (EDD)
and Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(11 July 2000)

Subject: United States Missile System

What is the opinion of the Council about the new United Nations National Missile Defence System (NMD)?
Would the Council agree that the NMD contravenes the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, could cost as
much as USD 240 billion, will trigger a new global arms race and completely ignores the EU(cid:146)s interests in
disarmament?

Does the Commission know of US efforts to influence EU Member States such as Denmark and the United
Kingdom into allowing installations for the NMD on their respective territories?

Has the Council been in contact with the Heads of State of EU Member States in order to coordinate
European cooperation to counter United States pressure to install the system?

Reply

(20 November 2000)

The European Union has reaffirmed the importance of the 1972 ABM Treaty as one of the mainstays of
strategic stability. The EU wishes to see that Treaty preserved. This Union position was voiced, inter alia, at
the year 2000 review conference of the Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.