WRITTEN QUESTION E-3432/01 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Relations between the EU and Ethiopia.
Date: 2001-12-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, EU national, EU relations, Ethiopia, cultural object, economic relations, governance, sugar

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/23

Community law, the Commission can bring the matter to the Court of Justice, which will determine
whether the Member State concerned has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the EC Treaty. The
procedure under Article 7 of the TEU provides that the Commission or one third of the Member States
may bring the matter to the Council, meeting at the level of Heads of State or Government, in the event of
a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the principles mentioned in Article 6 of the Treaty on
European Union.

(2002/C 229 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3432/01

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: Relations between the EU and Ethiopia

According to a statement by the Ethiopian Government, a four-member delegation of the Ethiopian Sugar
Industry Support Centre visited Brussels from 23 to 26 November 2001 to establish contacts with officials
of the Commission’s Directorates-General for Agriculture and Trade.

The purpose of the Ethiopian delegation is to put on an official footing the participation of Ethiopia 3
alongside eight other less developed countries 3 in the Community initiative ‘Everything But Arms’: these
countries will then be able to sell their sugar production to the Union over the next nine years at a
guaranteed preferential price. The Ethiopian authorities have calculated that by June 2002 Ethiopia will
have earned US$ 7,5 million from the EU, while if it tried to sell its produce on the free market the
revenue would amount to a mere US$ 2 million.

The EU is of course the world’s largest sugar producer, and Member States, such as Greece, which produce
significant quantities of very high grade sugar will feel the repercussions of this Community initiative. The
EU is steadfastly committed 3 and rightly so 3 to supporting the less developed countries and
guaranteeing them preferential treatment for their products. However, some of these countries 3 including
Ethiopia 3 stubbornly refuse to undo the damaging legacy of the totalitarian regimes previously imposed
on them. Ethiopia has been particularly inflexible about reversing the consequences of the Communist
regime of Mengistu and notably to the mass confiscation the property of many Community nationals
(Italians, French, Greeks, etc.) who lived in the country. Even though no initiative has yet been taken to
return this property to its rightful owners, the EU now seems prepared to help this country once more.

Have the Commission officials concerned raised the issue of returning property confiscated from
Community nationals with their Ethiopian counterparts? Will the Commission make the granting of aid
to Ethiopia conditional upon the taking of specific steps to reverse 3 even partially 3 the confiscation of
the property of Community citizens which is still in force despite the fact that the Communist regime is
supposed to have been overthrown?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2002)

The Commission has not, in the recent past, raised with the Ethiopian authorities the question of the
restitution of appropriated property owned by Union citizens, nor has the granting of Community aid
been made conditional on such restitution. According to existing practices; this is an issue to be addressed
on a bilateral level, between states or between the Ethiopian courts and the Union citizens concerned.

The Community is, however, increasingly concerned by governance issues in general and the Cotonou
Agreement provides for a number of
instruments through which standards of governance can be
influenced.

In the case of Ethiopia, the Commission is conscious of continued shortcomings in the judicial system, and
in other areas of governance, and increasing proportions of Community development aid are being
allocated to capacity building for governance, including 3 specifically 3 legal and judicial reform and the
strengthening of the judiciary.