WRITTEN QUESTION E-1280/01 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Mobilisation of crisis management force.
Date: 2001-05-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: armed forces, common foreign and security policy, conflict prevention

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/17

Kurds living in the country, while thousands of Christians (Greeks, Armenians, Roman Catholics, Syro-
Chaldeans etc) also encounter numerous obstacles in practising their religion. Typical examples are the
persecution suffered by Orthodox Christians in Turkey (cid:129) the Chalki Theological School, for instance, has
been closed for 30 years following a unilateral and arbitrary decision by the Turkish administration (cid:129) and
the persecution of the remaining Christians in Istanbul, Imvros and Tenedos.

Has the Council raised with the (cid:145)candidate for accession(cid:146) the matter of respect for the cultural diversity and
religious freedom of the millions of non-Turkish citizens living on its territory? How specifically does
Turkey account for the lack of respect for the Kurdish cultural identity? What specific indications have
there been of a change in attitude on the part of the Turkish authorities towards the Christians living in
Turkey since the country was designated a candidate for accession?

Reply

(20 November 2001)

In the Accession Partnership for Turkey (1), the Council has identified priorities relating in particular to
religious freedom and cultural diversity as follows:

Guarantee full enjoyment by all
individuals without any discrimination and irrespective of their
language, race, colour, sex, political opinion, philosophical belief or religion of all human rights and
fundamental
thought,
conscience and religion.

freedoms. Further develop conditions for the enjoyment of

freedom of

Ensure cultural diversity and guarantee cultural rights for all citizens irrespective of their origin. Any
legal provisions preventing the enjoyment of these rights should be abolished, including in the field of
education.

It is self-evident that this is valid for all minorities living in Turkey, whether Christian or not, whose rights
should be fully respected in practice. The reopening of Heybeliada (Chalki) Theological Seminary is to be
seen in this context.

In response to the Accession Partnership, Turkey adopted in March 2001 a National Programme for the
Adoption of the Acquis. The Commission is in the process of examining the content of this programme
and its compatibility with the Accession Partnership. In this context, the Council recalls that incorporation
of the EU acquis into Turkish legislation is not in itself sufficient. Turkey will also have to ensure that it is
actually applied. The implementation of the Accession Partnership will be closely monitored in the
Association Agreement bodies and through the competent Council bodies to which the Commission
reports regularly.

(1) OJ L 85, 24.3.2001, p. 13.

(2002/C 81 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1280/01

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(4 May 2001)

Subject: Mobilisation of crisis management force

The European Council has decided to establish by 2003 a (cid:145)rapid reaction force(cid:146) for purposes of crisis
management. On the decision of what institution, and under whose orders, does the Council consider this
force will be deployed?

Reply

(21 November 2001)

The Headline Goal, announced at the Helsinki European Council
in December 1999, set an agreed
voluntary capabilities target with the aim of ensuring effective capabilities for the full range of Petersberg

C 81 E/18

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

tasks. That target is for the provision of military self-sustaining forces of up to 15 brigades or 50 000 to
60 000 persons, capable of being deployed at 60 days notice for up to one year and available in 2003. As
has been noted in the conclusions of successive European Council(cid:146)s, these capabilities (the so-called (cid:145)Rapid
Reaction Force(cid:146)) do not constitute a standing or European Army. The decision to participate in any mission
remains the sovereign decision of each Member State.

In addition to military crisis management capabilities and as mandated by the Feira European Council,
the EU is also developing capabilities in the field of civilian crisis management. By 2003, Member States
should, inter alia, be able to provide up to 5 000 police officers for international missions across the range
of conflict prevention and crisis management operations, and within that overall target be able to identify
and deploy, within 30 days, up to 1 000 police officers.

Decisions on the deployment of armed forces for crisis management in EU-led military operations with or
without recourse to NATO assets are taken by the Council in accordance with Article 23 of the EU Treaty.

The Council also appoints the operation commander. Under all circumstances, including for an operation
calling on NATO assets and capabilities and including also the choice of all or part of the chain of
command (e.g. operation commander, force commanders), the entire chain of command remains at all
times under the political control and strategic direction of the Council/Council bodies (Political and
Security Committee).

It is for individual Member States to decide whether to contribute troops or resources to each specific crisis
management operation.

(2002/C 81 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1307/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE), Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE),
Willy De Clercq (ELDR), Robert Goebbels (PSE), Den Dover (PPE-DE),
Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(4 May 2001)

Subject: Sector-specific burden upon vending machine operators on the introduction of the euro

According to various studies from the Dutch research institute NEI and European Vending Association
(EVA),
the introduction of the euro creates a disproportionate sector-specific burden upon vending
machine operators, which are mostly SMUs. Whilst the retail trade claims that it will have to bear costs
amounting to 1-2 % of annual turnover, according to EVA the vending industry will be facing costs of at
least 10 % of annual turnover. Furthermore, the logistical and technical aspects of switching the 2,2 million
food and drink machines to the euro will also create inevitable turnover losses during the DCP, as not all
machines can be switched overnight. According to a preliminary legal memorandum drawn up by Van
Wijmen Nouwen, there is a legal basis for claiming compensation for sector-specific costs in at least seven
euro-area countries: Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Ireland.

Does the Council believe that the EVA figures relating to the sector-specific burden upon vending machine
operators are valid?

Does it agree that, in at least seven euro-area countries, a legal basis exists for claiming compensation for
sector-specific costs?

What measures does it think will be appropriate to support and/or compensate the vending industry,
especially SMUs?

Have any measures been planned to date?