WRITTEN QUESTION E-1825/01 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Decision-making and constructive abstention in defence matters.
Date: 2001-06-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common foreign and security policy, decision-making, rapid reaction force

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/65

(2002/C 81 E/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1816/01

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Council

(21 June 2001)

Subject: Council statement on the Italian government deficit issued following the meetings of 2 and 3 May

1998

Several authoritative sources such as the Bologna-based Osservatorio Immobiliare Nomisma, Scenari
Immobiliari, and the Milan-based Reddy(cid:146)s Group have revealed that the market value of fixed assets in the
form of commercial and residential property in Italy has been continuing to fall substantially since 1993.

Although it does not lay down a specific method for calculating property values, as Mr Bolkestein
acknowledged in his answer to Written Question P-0729/01 (1), the Fourth Directive (Directive 78/660/
EEC) (2) imposes an obligation to correct the initial book value of land and buildings when their value at
on the date of closure of a financial year is lower than the book value first entered less depreciation.

Contrary to what happens in some Member States, for example the United Kingdom and Ireland, which
each have their RICS, Italy has not adopted any official method, nor does it have an independent institute
able and authorised to determine the revised value for tax purposes of land and buildings owned by
individual companies. The fall in value described above cannot be recorded in the profit and loss account
under the heading of (cid:145)other depreciation of fixed assets(cid:146), because it is not recognised for tax purposes. The
Fourth Directive has not, de facto, been implemented in Italy.

Ever since 1993 the taxable income of property-owing Italian companies has thus continued to be
calculated in a manner not in accordance with the legislation in force (Article 2426 of the Code of Civil
Law), and the amount of such income is, moreover, higher than their real earned income.

As a result, the tax levied since 1993 from national companies by Italian central government, on the
current terms, is to some extent unlawful, and the aggregate tax revenue that could be attained if the
situation were restored to a completely legal footing would be much lower than the declared amount, and
the government deficit correspondingly higher.

Could the Council confirm that the statement issued following meetings held on 2 and 3 May 1998
(Ecofin) Council and Council of the European Union), to the effect that the Italian government deficit was
not excessive, was made with full knowledge of the facts set out above?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 243.
(2) OJ L 222, 14.8.1978, p. 11.

Reply

(26 November 2001)

The Council adopted the Decision of 3 May 1998 in accordance with Article 109 j (4) of the Treaty
(98/317/EC) where it is stated that Italy was not subject of a Council decision on the existence of an
excessive government deficit. This decision was adopted having taken into account, inter alia, the report
from the Commission, the report from the European Monetary Institute and the opinion of the European
Parliament.

(2002/C 81 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1825/01

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

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Decision-making and constructive abstention in defence matters

Title V, Article 23 of the Treaty of Amsterdam [Treaty on European Union] states that (cid:145)Decisions under
this Title shall be taken by the Council acting unanimously.(cid:146) This article also enshrines the principle of
(cid:145)constructive abstention(cid:146). How does the Council interpret this passage? Should the Treaty be interpreted as
meaning that even a single Member State may (cid:129) in accordance with the requirement for unanimity (cid:129)
prevent the deployment of the Crisis Management Force for particular duties if it votes against the decision
and does not favour abstaining from taking a decision?

C 81 E/66

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

Reply

(26 November 2001)

Article 23(1) of the TEU states that decisions under Title V of the Treaty (which concerns the Common
Foreign and Security Policy) are taken by the Council acting unanimously. It also stipulates that abstentions
by members present in person or represented do not prevent the adoption of such decisions.

The second paragraph of the same Article lists cases in which, by way derogation from paragraph 1, the
Council acts by a qualified majority, with the stipulation that this paragraph shall not, however, apply to
decisions having military or defence implications.

It
follows that decisions having military or defence implications are taken by the Council acting
unanimously. Consequently, a single member of the Council may prevent the adoption of a decision by
voting against it.

(2002/C 81 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1827/01

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Intimidation of human rights defenders in Ethiopia

Is the Council aware of the routine intimidation of human rights defenders in Ethiopia, which has most
recently manifested itself in the arrests and subsequent denial of bail of Prof. Mesfin Woldemariam, the
founder and first chairman of Ethiopia(cid:146)s Human Rights Council (EHRCO), and Dr Berhanu Nega, an
academic and human rights activist? In addition to the arrests, which may violate Ethiopia(cid:146)s constitutional
guarantee of freedom of assembly, the denial of bail
is a common method used by the Ethiopian
Government to silence outspoken human rights critics by incarcerating them while long, intentionally slow
(cid:145)investigations(cid:146) are carried out. Will the Council demand that the Ethiopian Government respect these
men(cid:146)s fundamental rights and that the chronic harassment of human rights defenders be brought to an
end?

Reply

(26 November 2001)

The Council, which is closely following the situation in Ethiopia,
the
development of the political situation and the human rights violations in that country. Following events
in Addis Ababa in mid-April this year, the local EU troika approached the Ethiopian authorities on two
occasions (April and August 2001) to express the EU(cid:146)s concern about the ways in which the disturbances
were quelled and about the subsequent imprisonment of students and opposition leaders.

remains concerned about

(2002/C 81 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1839/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Harmful effects of animal fat consumption

(26 June 2001)

The EU is moving towards abolishing aid to tobacco growing in an attempt to restrict smoking, which is
actually seriously harmful to health.