WRITTEN QUESTION E-2939/01 by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Council. Persecution of the Serenissimi of St Mark's by the Italian courts.
Date: 2001-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Veneto, autonomous movement, competence of the Member States, imprisonment, national law

C 134 E/156

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

In accordance with the Nice declaration, the Commission, in its role as guardian of the Treaties, has
ensured that account has been taken of the specific characteristics of sport.

(1) Presidency conclusions   Nice European Council   7, 8 and 9 December 2000   Annex IV.
(2) Report from the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and
maintaining the social function of sport within the Community framework   The Helsinki Report on Sport  
COM(1999) 644, 1.12.1999 final.

(3) COM(2001) 584 final.

(2002/C 134 E/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2939/01

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Council

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Persecution of the ‘Serenissimi’ of St Mark’s by the Italian courts

The Italian courts, which have so far failed to secure a single conviction in a criminal prosecution against
Islamic terrorists, have, on the other hand, attacked with tenacity a number of Venetian patriots whose
only offence was to have carried out a spectacular occupation of St Mark’s belltower in support of the
right of the Venetian people to their own identity and freedom.

The demonstrators were sentenced to between three and six years imprisonment and, even today, are still
on probation or parole.

Does the Council not think that, in this disgraceful case of judicial persecution of decent people with no
criminal records who have done nothing but express their opinions, it has a duty to check whether the
sentences passed comply with the principle of equity which is at the root of European judicial ethics and
whether or not they breach the protection of freedom of opinion and expression established by the
international legal order?

Reply

(14 February 2002)

The Honourable Member of the European Parliament is informed that the Council is not competent to
determine whether concrete actions taken by the judicial authorities in the Member States are legal or
justified.

(2002/C 134 E/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2942/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Protracted settlement procedures following (road) accidents in Switzerland

In answer to question E-1080/01 (1) the Council says that it is not aware of the substance of the
discussions which, according to the honourable Member,
took place on 16 February between the
Presidency and the President of Switzerland. The initiative taken by the then Presidency of the EU was part
of an attempt to reach a solution to protracted settlement procedures for claims between EU victims and
Swiss insurance companies because the fourth directive on motor vehicle insurance did not provide a
solution to the problem.

Loop-holes in Swiss legislation enable insurance companies to withhold for a very long time the payment
of damages resulting from civil liability. This source of legal uncertainty affects EU citizens who are victims
of (road) accidents in Switzerland. They become caught up in a legalistic procedural wrangle with no
prospect of compensation within a reasonable period of time.