WRITTEN QUESTION E-2997/00 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council. Plan Colombia.
Date: 2000-09-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Colombia, armed forces, establishment of peace, human rights, paramilitary force

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/25

In its communication of 12 July 2000 to the European Parliament and the Council (1), the Commission
summarises the detailed modalities of frontloading of euro notes and coins to traders (banks and retailers
notably) and of a limited quantity of euro coins to the general public as envisaged by Member States in
conformity with the above.

Putting at the disposal of the general public, prior to 1 January 2002, of euro banknotes and important
quantities of euro coins, will only add to possible confusion, since these banknotes and coins will only
have legal tender status as from 1 January 2002.

The Council will continue to monitor the situation and will take, if needed, appropriate steps in order to
ensure that the problems referred to by the Honourable Parliamentarian, will not arise.

(1) COM(2000) 443 final).

(2001/C 163 E/024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2997/00

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(25 September 2000)

Subject: Plan Colombia

What actions does the Council
intend to take to ensure that the Colombian government honour its
commitment to improve human rights conditions as set out in Plan Colombia? Is the Council aware of the
inherent links between the state army, to whom the aid package is primarily directed, and the paramilitary
groups who have carried out recent massacres?

Reply

(12 February 2001)

The European Union has repeatedly affirmed its support for the efforts of the Colombian Government to
take forward the peace process, but it has insisted, and will continue to insist, that the Government
commit itself to improving the human rights situation in Colombia.

The European Union has also appealed to all the parties to respect human rights and fundamental
freedoms and to seek a negotiated solution to the conflict, without which there can be no prospect of
lasting peace.

The Council has already had occasion to brief the European Parliament on Plan Colombia several times,
notably at the October part-session, in reply to Oral Questions H-715 and H-776.

(cid:145)Plan Colombia(cid:146) is a (cid:145)National Recovery Programme(cid:146) launched by President Pastrana when he was elected
in July 1998. The Plan, which envisages a budget of USD 7 600 million over three years,
includes
provisions concerning the peace process in Colombia, rehabilitation of the Colombian economy, combat-
ing drugs, reform of the legal system, protection of human rights, democracy and social development. In
the course of technical missions the Union has voiced its concerns and made comments and additional
recommendations, in consideration of which the Colombian representatives presented their reply at the
international meeting in London on 19 June 2000.

The Union is watching the development of the situation in Colombia very closely and endeavouring to
further the peace process there by seeking practical possibilities for cooperation. Following the interna-
tional meeting on Colombia held in Madrid on 6/7 July 2000, attended by representatives of the
15 Member States and the Commission and by Mr Solana, the Secretary-General/High Representative for
the CFSP, progress was made in the discussions at the meeting in Bogota on 24 October 2000. The Union
is currently preparing a vast array of support measures exclusively concerning civil, social and ecological
projects, to be presented at the meeting scheduled for March 2001 in Brussels; this meeting follows on
from the previous meetings mentioned above. The package of measures reflects the independent approach
taken by the European Union and its Member States to support the peace process in Colombia.

C 163 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

In determining the means to be deployed, the Union will ensure that its aid contributes to respect for and
promotion of human rights, which are a vital component of its cooperation with third countries.

(2001/C 163 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3012/00

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2000)

Subject: Polish Industrial Property Act

Commissioner Verheugen, acting on behalf of the Commission, has replied to my Written Question
P-2326/00 (1) with a suggestion that the problems caused by Article 322 of the Polish Industrial Property
Act fall outside the scope of both EC law and the European Agreement with Poland.

Commissioner Verheugen has invoked Article 295 of the EC Treaty, which lays down that Member States
are free to decide on their respective systems of property ownership, to support his opinion.

Does the Commission believe that Article 295 of the EC Treaty allows Member States to acquire

1.
property (e.g. a trade mark) located in foreign countries and therefore subject to foreign jurisdiction?

Does it believe that Article 295 of the EC Treaty covers the situation where a state obliges a private
2.
individual to transfer his property (e.g. a trade mark) to another person, who may be either a public or
a private entity?

Can it confirm that, according to EC law (which Poland must incorporate into its domestic legal

3.
system, the registration of a trade mark is the basic source of rights over that trade mark?

4.
In the light of the wording of Article 322 of the new Polish Industrial Property Act, which lays down
that [t]rade marks registered in Poland or abroad in the name of [the current owners] shall be transferred,
in Poland or abroad, to the manufacturer [(cid:133)], does the Commission believe that the application by
analogy of Article 295 of the Treaty to this legal provision is appropriate?

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 183.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question P-2326/00 (1).

Poland is currently not a member of the Union. If the EC Treaty in its Article 295 (ex-article 222)
explicitly states that (cid:145)This treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system
of property ownership(cid:146), then, a fortiori, the Community has no competence to intervene in property issues
in countries that apply for membership. Therefore, the issue is, and would be even if Poland were already
member of the Union, one for national law rather than Community law.

In this framework the questions posed by the Honourable Member relating to the interpretation of Article
295 are not relevant to the case in question as Poland is not a Member State. The Commission reiterates
in falling outside the scope of the Europe agreement, the question is one for Poland(cid:146)s
its view that,
domestic law and its international obligations, as the European Union(cid:146)s common position for the
Association Council also underlines. The Commission further notes in this context that the issue of the
amendment in question has been sent to the Polish constitutional court for a ruling on its legality. If the
legislation is not amended it will be for any company concerned to pursue directly through the
appropriate legal channels.