WRITTEN QUESTION P-3373/01 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Relations between the European Union and the Palestinian Authority.
Date: 2001-11-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU relations, Palestine question, cooperation policy, international relations, management audit, project management

C 172 E/44

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2002)

Generally, although the differences of view between the United States and the Union on the death penalty
are well known, the Union regularly recalls its opposition to this punishment and invites the United States
to at least respect certain strict minimum standards for use of the death penalty, notably in relation to
juveniles and mentally retarded. These standards have been set down in the guidelines to Union policy
towards third countries on the death penalty. It goes without saying that the Commission will continue to
actively convey this policy to American authorities.

Regarding the more specific issue of an agreement between the United States and the Union on
extradition, under Articles 38 and 24 of the Treaty on European Union, for an agreement with a third state
on matters of judicial cooperation in criminal questions to be concluded, the Council, acting unanimously,
needs to authorise the Presidency, assisted by the Commission as appropriate, to open negotiations to that
effect. Once the negotiations are finalised, the agreement is concluded by the Council acting unanimously
on a recommendation from the Presidency.

The Council has not yet been seized formally to give such an authorisation to the Presidency, let alone
taken a decision on it. No authorisation having been given yet,
it has not been possible to start
negotiations. Nevertheless, it is correct that the possibilities of an agreement under Articles 38 and 24 of
the Treaty on European Union on judicial cooperation in criminal matters between the United States and
the Union are currently being explored.

In any event, it would seem impossible to include the United States in the European arrest warrant system
as such. Indeed the title of the initiative the Commission took in September 2001 is ‘Council Framework
Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member States’ (1). The
European arrest warrant system is for Member States only, and it is not intended that persons could be
transferred under this system from a Member State to a third country, such as the United States. If the
above-mentioned agreement between the Union and the United States were to cover the field of
extradition, it could thus be expected to contain provisions different from the ones in the European arrest
warrant Framework Decision.

While it must be pointed out that under the rules of Articles 38 and 24 of the Treaty on European Union,
it would not be for the Commission, but for the Union as such to enter into an agreement with a third
country such as the United States, the Commission can clearly restate its determination that if and when it
will exercise the role conferred upon it by the Treaties in this matter, it will do so in the strictest respect of
Article 2 paragraph 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2), which provides that
‘No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed’, as well as Article 19 paragraph 2 of the
Charter, reading ‘No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk
that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment’.

(1) COM(2001) 522 final.
(2) OJ C 364, 18.12.2000.

(2002/C 172 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3373/01

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Relations between the European Union and the Palestinian Authority

On 18 November the EU Troika > composed of Belgian Prime Minister Verhofstad, Commission President
Prodi and High Representative for Foreign Policy Javier Solana > met the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel
Sharon.

According to international press reports, Prime Minister Sharon asked the European Union at that meeting
to stop funding the Palestinian Authority directly ‘because these funds are helping to buy arms which are

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/45

used against us (Israel)’. President Prodi is reported to have replied that the € 200 million paid by the EU to
Arafat over a period of 14 months had served to meet the basic needs of the Palestinian people, thereby
promoting a return to peace.

Can the Commission answer the following:

> What activities have actually been funded and why does the Commission finance the Palestinian

Authority directly rather than contribute via third parties?

> Have quantitative and qualitative checks been carried out on the use made of the funds allocated to

the Palestinian Authority? If so, what were the results?

> EU funding is conditional upon respect for the ‘democracy clause’. Does the Commission consider that

the Palestinian Authority is respecting the underlying principles of this clause?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2002)

The financial and technical co-operation granted by the Community to the Palestinian Authority is mainly
covered by the following budget lines:

> B7-410: Meda (Supporting measures to the reforms of the economic and social structures in the

Mediterranian third countries); and

> B7-420: Community actions connected with the peace agreement concluded between Israel and the

Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO).

Concerning direct budgetary aid, community financial agreements are normally concluded with the
national authorities of the beneficiary state. In the case of the Palestinians this is the Palestinian Authority
(PA). The utilisation of third parties in this instance would not guarantee the proper monitoring and would
not allow the attachment of fiscal and administrative conditions that exist in the present arrangement. The
International Monetary Fund (IMF) however monitors and reports to the Commission on the PA’s fiscal
and budgetary situation and on the fulfilment of Community conditions on budget support.

The conditions attached to the Community’s financial support consist of the reduction of PA expenditure
through a spending plan, fiscal reform eliminating scope for any extra-budgetary spending (consolidation
of accounts) and freeze of the pay-role. The Commission receives monthly reports from the IMF on the
fulfilment of the Community conditions. Payments are subject to the PA’s fulfilment of EU conditions.

The IMF closely reviews the monthly fiscal information communicated by the PA:

> revenue developments (domestic revenue, estimated clearance revenue collected and withheld by

Israel),

> evolution of employment (wage bill),

> non-wage expenditures,

> debts and arrears.

The IMF has secured an every-day presence in the PA Ministry of Finance to monitor incoming requests by
line ministries and corresponding approvals by the Ministry of Finance; verifies consolidated banking data
and transactions on the single treasury account against these requests and approvals.

The IMF has confirmed that the Community conditions have been met by the PA and have achieved their
purposes beyond the expectations of the monitoring party.

Regarding development projects, the Commission is fully involved in the programming, preparation,
implementation and monitoring of assistance projects to the Palestinian Authority. Beneficiaries are
required to send reports on regular basis and projects are audited by the Commission staff and outside
evaluation.