WRITTEN QUESTION E-3358/01 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL)and Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Council. European arrest warrant and the extradition of suspected terrorists to the USA.
Date: 2001-12-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union, United States, death penalty, extradition, human rights, international criminal law, international negotiations, terrorism

C 160 E/102

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2002)

On the basis of the information supplied, the Commission will write to the Dutch authorities requesting
clarification and further information on this issue.

With regard to Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws,
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used
for experimental and other scientific purposes, the Commission is planning a revision of the Directive. This
revision will incorporate also initiatives in the area of the use of non-human primates. The extension of
the scope of the Directive to cover the welfare of animals who are no longer part of experimentation will
be examined during the revision.

(2002/C 160 E/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3358/01

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL)
and Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(7 December 2001)

Subject: European arrest warrant and the extradition of suspected terrorists to the USA

We have gathered from press reports that the United States of America and the European Union are
pursuing an agreement that would pave the way for the extradition of suspected terrorists to the USA
under the new European arrest warrant by ensuring that the death penalty would not be applied in certain
cases. We have also taken note of the global assurances given by the US Ambassador to the EU,
Mr Rockwell Schnabel, that the death penalty would not be applied to suspected terrorists extradited from
Europe; however, with regard to that matter, the US Ambassador emphasised the need for some countries
‘to change things, including their constitutions’ and added that ‘there is agreement to pursue that’.

Bearing in mind that opposition to the death penalty is one of the fundamental principles of the EU,
enshrined as it is in the constitutions and in the specific laws of many of its Member States, and that the
new powers conferred on the President of
the United States since 11 September 2001 (including
entrusting military courts with jurisdiction, in summary proceedings, over foreigners suspected of terrorist
activities) would nullify any assurances given by State or Federal authorities of the USA, would the Council
clarify the juridical nature and the scope of the negotiations with the USA going on in such a context and
restate its determination not to enter any agreement which would compromise,
limit or modify EU
opposition to the death penalty under any circumstances, particularly those involving emergency
extradition procedures?

Reply

(25/26 March 2002)

The Council agreed (see conclusion III.7 of 20 September 2001) on the principle of proposing to the
United States that an agreement be negotiated between the European Union and the United States, on the
basis of Article 38 of the TEU, in the field of penal cooperation on terrorism.

Shortly thereafter, Prime Minister Verhofstadt, together with Commission President Prodi, visited the
United States. On that occasion, President Bush expressed a wish to continue discussions and,
in a
subsequent letter that has been rendered public, specified some of his thoughts on the issue.

The Presidency has since then, in accordance with the wish of the Council, been conducting exploratory
talks with our US partners, with a view to gaining a better understanding of the added value that any
agreement in the field of penal cooperation on terrorism might give. These exploratory talks have not yet
been completed.

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/103

Formal negotiations can only start following an authorisation to that effect by the Council in accordance
with the procedures laid down in Article 24 TUE. No such authorisation has yet been given.

Any reports according to which extradition of persons from Member Sates to third States would take place
on the basis of the provisions concerning the European arrest warrant are incorrect: The European arrest
warrant is designed as an instrument of cooperation between EU Member States only.

According to Article 6 (2) TEU, the Union shall respect fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the
constitutional principles common to the Member States. This applies also whenever the Union acts
pursuant to Articles 24 and 38 TUE.

In the light of DeclarationNo1 on the abolition of the death penalty, annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty
of Amsterdam, it is obvious that any Agreement to be concluded between the Union and a third State will
have to respect the constitutional traditions common to the Member States pertaining to the abolition of
the death penalty.

(2002/C 160 E/134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3364/01

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Moroccan exports of tomatoes to the EU

(6 December 2001)

Community farmers report that Morocco is systematically exceeding the quotas allocated by the EU for
exports of tomatoes. Is the Commission aware of this? If so, what measures has it taken or will it take to
put an end to this practice?

Is the Commission keeping track of the actual volume of Moroccan horticultural products placed on the
European market over the past months, and specifically of how many tonnes of tomatoes have been
placed on the market? If so, can it provide the corresponding figures?

What is the Commission’s opinion of the prices for this product on Central European markets?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Under the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities
and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (1), tomatoes
originating in Morocco may, on import into the Community, benefit from preferential tariffs, either on the
ad valorem duty, or on the entry price, subject to a quota (2).

The state of utilisation of quotas, updated daily, is available on the Commission’s Internet site at: http://
europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/dds/es/qotcau.htm.

The order numbers for quotas concerning tomatoes imported from Morocco are 0911 16 (annual quota at
nil ad valorem duty), 0911 89 (quota with a reduced entry price for October) and 0911 90 (quota with a
reduced entry price from November to March). So far, these quotas have never been fully used.

The Commission also exercises rigorous surveillance of tomatoes and other fruit and vegetables (3) so that
it is very rapidly aware of the total quantity imported from Morocco.

Total imports of tomatoes originating in Morocco in recent months amounted to (in tonnes C t):

C 372 t in June 2001,

C 0 t from July to September 2001,

C 6 527 t in October 2001 (including 4 717 t at a reduced entry price),