WRITTEN QUESTION E-1166/01 by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Council. Zimbabwe Resolution.
Date: 2001-04-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Zimbabwe, development aid, foreign capital, political situation, suspension of aid, the EU's international role

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/13

Regarding the judgement of the Tribunal de premiŁre instance de Paris, the Commission can confirm that
in this criminal proceeding, the European Year of Tourism (EYT) projects were not included and it was
based on the subsequent programme Tourism Action Plan projects. However, details relating to the EYT
funded projects, and the documents and the observations made by the European Court of Auditors were
passed on to the French administrative authorities and to France(cid:146)s Court of Auditors in 1996. To date,
these projects have not been the subject of any formal complaint to the French judicial authorities. As
soon as the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) became aware that these authorities had the facts about
the EYT projects, it asked the judicial authorities in charge of the criminal proceedings to take these into
consideration. The judicial authorities did not do so, however, on the grounds that those facts were
covered by the Statute of Limitations and did not relate to the case being tried (based on the Tourism
Action Plan).

In keeping with the undertaking which the Commission gave in its report to Parliament and the Court of
Auditors in July 1998, the Commission services are continuing to finalise the exact amounts that are due
to the Commission from the European Year of Tourism beneficiaries and will inform the Paris Prosecutor
of all the salient information in due course.

In its handling of this case, the Commission has launched several disciplinary procedures. Allegations
against the main official responsible are the subject of criminal proceedings initiated in France (see above)
and, in accordance with the Staff Regulations, the Commission(cid:146)s proceedings have been suspended until a
final and definitive judgement has been taken by the competent courts. Where allegations have arisen
which are not covered by these criminal cases, the Commission has completed the disciplinary procedures,
this decision by the official primarily
and has dismissed both officials. The appeal
responsible was rejected by the Court of First Instance and subsequently by the Court of Justice of the
European Communities.

lodged against

In response to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question about the duration of the Belgian court case and the
subject of the judgement given earlier in France, the Commission draws attention to the fact that the
Institution is obliged to respect the sovereignty of the Member States and the focus and the scope of their
criminal proceedings are entirely a matter for decision by their national judicial authorities.

The recent IPK-case to which the Honourable Member refers to is still pending before the Court of Justice.

The Commission believes that the obligation to report irregularities is part of the duty of loyalty that its
members of staff owe the Institution as an employer and the Commission agrees with the Honourable
Member that officials who bring such irregularities to light through the channels established in the
Regulation should suffer no adverse consequences as a result of their responsible action. In 1999, the
Commission consequently improved its regime for providing safe and effective channels for reporting
serious wrongdoings and offering protection for the reporting official. As part of the Commission Reform
proposals currently being considered by the relevant bodies the Commission has proposed further
strengthening and extension of this regime.

(2002/C 81 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1166/01

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 April 2001)

Subject: Zimbabwe Resolution

What steps have been taken against
the
European Parliament (R5-0156/2001)? What steps have been taken to identify overseas assets held by
President Mugabe and his
supporters? Has development cooperation assistance managed by the
Zimbabwean Government and its agencies been suspended? Have consultations been initiated under
Article 96 of the Cotonou agreement?

the Zimbabwean Government

following the resolution of

C 81 E/14

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

Reply

(20 November 2001)

Since the beginning of March this year and following the visit of President Mugabe to Brussels, the EU has
decided to enter into a constructive, critical and balanced dialogue with Zimbabwe guided by the spirit of
Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement. The EU started this dialogue with the objective of exchanging
information and fostering mutual understanding on issues which the EU considers to be of fundamental
importance in the relations between the parties and which are, moreover, set out in the text of the
Agreement. At its meeting on 25 June 2001, the Council (General Affairs) noted the lack of substantial
progress in the ongoing political dialogue with the Government of Zimbabwe and expressed its deep
concern over recent developments in Zimbabwe. It stressed that as a first priority the dialogue should yield
rapid and tangible results on the following: an end to political violence, and in particular an end to all
official encouragement or acceptance of such violence, an invitation to the EU to support and observe
coming elections and full access to that end, concrete action to protect the freedom of mass media,
independence of the judiciary and the respect of its decisions and an end of illegal occupation of
properties.

The Council agreed to closely follow developments in these areas, as well as on overall questions regarding
the rule of law, economic policies and the land reform during the next two-month period, and to take
appropriate measures if substantial progress has not been made.

Concerning the question of what steps have been taken to identify overseas assets held by President Mugabe
and his supporters, the Council can inform the Honourable Member that this action has not been
discussed within the Council.

During the present crisis in the country, development cooperation assistance managed by the Commission
has been reoriented to the social sectors. This has incidentally resulted in a substantial drop in the value of
assistance delivered.

Present assistance is delivered under the LomØ Conventions, pending the coming into force of the Cotonou
Agreement. Under LomØ, assistance is delivered through the government.

(2002/C 81 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1172/01

by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Council

Subject: Double murder in Tetovo, Macedonia

(24 April 2001)

The whole world witnessed the killing of two utterly defenceless men in front of the television cameras by
Macedonian army soldiers.

Is the Council going to stand by and take no action, when such acts of barbarism, which have already
caused thousands of deaths in the Balkans, are taking place all over again in the face of the failure of the
European Union(cid:146)s Member States to take action?

Reply

(21 November 2001)

The Council is seriously concerned about the level of tension and violence (cid:129) which the EU has repeatedly
condemned in the firmest terms (cid:129) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Incidents like the one
to which the Honourable Member refers are the unfortunate result of acts of provocation from Albanian
extremists aimed at drawing the government of FYROM into the spiral of a full-scale conflict.

To interrupt the spiral of violence, the EU High Representative, Javier Solana, through his strong personal
commitment and numerous visits to the country since the beginning of the crisis, has been instrumental in
getting a political process through interethnic dialogue under way. On 13 May a (cid:145)government of national