WRITTEN QUESTION E-2076/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Revised standpoint of the Belgian Federation on national compensation payments.
Date: 2001-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, European arms policy, arms industry, award of contract, competition law, derogation from EU law, military equipment

C 40 E/180

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

out an important signal. Moreover, Patten acknowledges this in the answer to Question E-1323/01:
(cid:145)the Commission welcomes the decision by the Belgian authorities to bring an end to the link between
military procurement and economic compensation payments for firms in Flanders and Wallonia(cid:146).

1. Why does the Commission take the view that communication COM(1997) 583 on the defence
industry offers better guarantees for transparent military procurement, consistent with market principles
and free from protectionism and unsavoury business practices, than the removal of all military products
from the list of products to which the provisions of Article 296(1)(b) apply?

How will communication COM(1997) 583 on the defence industry bring about transparent military
2.
procurement consistent with market principles and free from protectionism and unsavoury business
practices?

In the light of

the answers to questions 1 to 3, does the Commission intend, pursuant

to
3.
Article 296(2) of the EC Treaty, to submit a proposal to the Council to delete all military (cid:145)products(cid:146) from
the list of products to which the provisions of paragraph 1(b) of that article apply, a list adopted by the
Council on 15 April 1958? If not, why will the Commission not draw up such a proposal, in view of the
answers to questions 1 to 3?

(1) See p. 35.
(2) COM(1997) 583.

(2002/C 40 E/194)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2076/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Revised standpoint of the Belgian Federation on national compensation payments

In its answer to Question E-1323/01 (1) the Commission welcomes the decision by the Belgian authorities
to end the link between military procurement and compensation payments for firms in Flanders and
Wallonia. The Belgian Federation took that decision on 15 December 2000. However,
in the face of
outside pressure the Belgian Government has recently revised its standpoint. As a result, national
compensation payments (cid:129) regrettable enough in themselves (cid:129) will once again form part of the political
decision-making process in connection with military procurement. Given that it welcomed the original
decision, it would seem logical for the Commission to deplore this revised standpoint.

Does the Commission welcome the revised standpoint of the Belgian Government concerning national
compensation payments in connection with military procurement? If so, how can the Commission
reconcile this view with the welcome it gave to the original Belgian decision to end the link between
national compensation payments and military procurement?

(1) See p. 35.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2075/01 and E-2076/01
given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

Like the Honourable Member, the Commission is anxious to guarantee transparency and to enforce
competition in the public procurement of arms as in other sectors; it would therefore like to add the
following comments to its answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question E-1323/01.

The communication of 1997 would have enabled the goal of transparency and respect of competition in
the arms sector to be achieved, had the proposals been adopted by the Member States. However, the
discussions on this communication within Polarm (Working Party on a European Arms Policy) ended in
failure at the end of 1999 after two years of talks, as the Member States were not ready to commit
themselves to any of the Commission(cid:146)s proposals to create a European market for arms.

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/181

Article 296(1)(b) of the EC Treaty only derogates from the application of EC law if the security interests of
the Member States are at stake. This exception to EC law must be interpreted strictly, and does not amount
to a general derogation for arms contracts from EC legislation on public procurement.

However, the Commission would stress that this Article is still important for certain strategic and highly
sensitive military equipment where the manufacture, purchase or sale of such equipment could in fact
undermine the security of a Member State. But, if all military equipment were removed from the 1958 list
to which Article 296(1)(b) applies, it would amount to emptying the provision of its meaning and to de
facto deleting paragraph 1(b). Furthermore, Article 296(2) stipulates that changes to the 1958 list are made
by (cid:145)the Council (cid:133) acting unanimously(cid:146) on a proposal from the Commission. It seems unlikely that all
Member States would agree to delete Article 296(1)(b) by deleting all military equipment from the 1958
list. Such a proposal from the Commission would therefore stand little chance of success and would not be
in accordance with the positions it set out in its communication of 1997 in which it recognises among
other things the special nature of the sector.

therefore proposing that Article 296(1)(b) be deleted;

The Commission is not
intends to
encourage the creation of specific instruments for armaments and to create the conditions for a single
European market in these products, rendering recourse to Article 296 redundant. The Commission(cid:146)s
that these
opposition to economic compensation for public procurement of arms reflects its belief
practices are out of place in a competitive market economy. Such practices will only disappear with the
introduction of a comprehensive European arms policy.

instead it

(2002/C 40 E/195)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2079/01

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Shipwreck in the Straits of Messina: recovery of bodies

(3 July 2001)

In 1996, during the Christmas period, a vessel bound for Europe carrying 283 clandestine migrants of
Indian, Pakistani and Tamil origin was wrecked at sea off Sicily. None of the migrants on board escaped
the catastrophe. Recently, the wreck and the bodies of numerous victims have been identified by members
of the Portopalo fishing community.

Can the Commission undertake a humanitarian intervention in this matter in order to recover the victims(cid:146)
bodies, given that no national or regional institution in the Mediterranean region has proved willing to do
so?

What actions is the Commission promoting with a view to identifying the criminal elements which exploit
this and other tragic (cid:145)voyages to a better life(cid:146) undertaken by clandestine migrants hoping to reach the
coasts of southern Italy, recalling that those coasts are increasingly exposed to the arrival of clandestine
third-country migrants thanks to the failure of the Italian authorities to take the necessary preventive and
punitive action?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

The Commission remember the humane tragedy, which took place in December 1996, when 283
clandestine migrants became victims of a wreckage at sea off Sicily. It is unfortunately not in a position to
commit itself to support the recovery of the victim(cid:146)s bodies of this incident.

Over the last five years many vessels of all sizes with clandestine migrants stranded along the shores of
Mediterranean Member States. Often at the risk of one(cid:146)s life clandestine migrants have been smuggled by
criminal networks, which habitually even sacrifice human beings in order to avoid apprehension. But also
other dangers of unsafe passages entail often victims among clandestine migrants.