WRITTEN QUESTION E-2942/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Protracted settlement procedures following (road) accidents in Switzerland.
Date: 2001-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU national, Switzerland, civil liability, conciliation procedure (part of ordinary legislative procedure), indemnification, third-party insurance, transport accident

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.

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/157

Can the Council now provide full details of the discussions that took place on 16 February between the EU
Presidency and the President of Switzerland concerning the speedy, equitable and fair settlement of claims
made by European victims of road accidents in Switzerland? If not, why is the Council refusing to provide
full details of these discussions?

(1) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 41.

Reply

(14 February 2002)

The Council wishes to refer to its reply to the question (E-1080/01) from the Honourable Member on the
same subject, explaining that the Council has not been informed of any contacts on the subject at hand
between the Presidency of the EU and the President of Switzerland in February of this year. As far as the
Council has been able to establish the matter was not discussed on the occasion referred to by the
Honourable Member.

(2002/C 134 E/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2946/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(19 October 2001)

Subject: Common immigration policies in the light of the terrorist attacks in the US

In the light of the widespread abuse of asylum provisions in the European Union in recent years, the need
to preserve public support for the principle of asylum for genuine refugees and the fact that in the light of
the recent attacks in the US it is ever more vital to ensure that only those who have legal entitlement are
resident in Europe, does the Council accept that one of the principal reasons why human traffickers
continue to find it profitable to ply their trade and why there are so many people living clandestinely
(including many people who had had asylum claims refused in the courts and then ‘disappeared’ into the
community) within the European Union is that there is a failure of political will in Europe to apply the law
and remove those who are not entitled to enter or remain within the borders of Member States?

If so, does the Council believe it is essential that the new common policy on immigration being developed
should at the very minimum ensure that:

  a list is drawn up by the Council of States which do not practice state persecution;

  Member States agree a common definition of asylum, streamline appeals procedures and set in place
mechanisms for the removal of those whose applications are judged unfounded which are respected
by other Member States;

  economic and political pressure is brought to bear by the Union on states which refuse to accept back
their nationals on the grounds that they do not have the necessary documents, and criminal sanctions
be introduced for those whose asylum applications are judged unfounded or who are otherwise
required to leave a Member State if
they refuse to cooperation with the lawful authorities in
identifying and establishing their countries of origin;

  no Member State has laws preventing removal of non-EU citizens not given political refugee status?