WRITTEN QUESTION P-2120/01 by Hans Modrow (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Extradition of Milosevic to the Hague tribunal.
Date: 2001-07-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, International Criminal Tribunal, Serbia and Montenegro, cooperation policy, extradition, international law, international relations

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/343

(2004/C 78 E/0361)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2120/01

by Hans Modrow (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Extradition of Milosevic to the Hague tribunal

(9 July 2001)

In his recent speech to the European Parliament, President Kostunica of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
declared his commitment to democracy and the rule of law as the way in which his country should
develop. What view are we to take of his statement that the Djindjic Government’s extradition of former
President Milosevic in defiance of the ruling by the Constitutional Court was a violation of his country’s
laws?

Did the European Union or its Member States promise the Djindjic Government advantages in return for
surrendering Milosevic to the tribunal in The Hague?

What are the Commission’s views on the danger of a further disintegration of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

The Commission, and the Union, warmly welcomed the decision by Belgrade to comply with its
international obligations in handing over another indictee (ex-President Milosevic) to the International
Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at the Hague.

Cooperation with ICTY is an international obligation on all United Nations (UN) Member States and on the
signatories of the Dayton Agreement. As such, neither the Union, its Member States, nor the Commission
made any promise to any state in relation to their compliance with such international obligations.
Cooperation with ICTY, like respect for other international obligations (Dayton, UNSCR 1244, obligations
of membership of international organisations) is, furthermore, one of many conditions set out in the
Union Stabilisation and Association process and as such has an effect on the development of political
relations and the delivery of Community or Member States’ assistance. The Commission and the World
Bank had already decided to organise a Donors’ Conference for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY),
held in Brussels on 29 June 2001. Participants welcomed the fact that the Belgrade authorities had decided
to comply with their international obligations by transferring Mr Milocevic to the Hague.

Regarding the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Union policy was clearly stated in the Conclusions of the
General Affairs Council on 22 January 2001, where the Union urged Belgrade and Podgorica to agree on
an open and democratic process, within an overall Federal framework, to decide on a new constitutional
arrangement for relations between the components of the Federation, acceptable to all the parties, and
reaffirmed that this must be consistent with the internal stability of the FRY and the regional stability of
SouthEastern Europe. The Union will continue to develop its relations with the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia.

(2004/C 78 E/0362)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3711/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Subject: New trade agreement with the USA

In spring 1998, plans for a new trade agreement between the European Union and the USA were put on
ice, partly owing to protests by France.