WRITTEN QUESTION E-3619/01 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Enlargement negotiations.
Date: 2002-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, accession negotiations, acquisition of property, free movement of workers, price of farm land, transitional period (EU)

C 229 E/40

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

In its Country Strategy Paper for Albania 2002-2006 (1), the Commission has considered justice and home
affairs (including the fight against organised crime and trafficking of human beings) as the main priority
area for Community financial assistance. For the implementation of projects in this field, the Commission
will certainly take concerted action with all relevant bodies and institutions, both at Albanian and
international
inter alia, to help to root out the gangs involved in the
trafficking and exploitation of children, and to support Albania’s continued progress in implementing the
guidelines on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography adopted by the
Parliament in June 2001.

level. These projects will aim,

(1) C/2001/4394.

(2002/C 229 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3619/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Enlargement negotiations

Can the Commission confirm, in response to legitimate concerns from a number of Member States, and
especially Germany and Austria, that the Commission is negotiating with applicant countries on the basis
of a seven-year transitional period for freedom of movement of labour from the applicant countries to the
current Member States?

Does the Commission also recognise that a number of countries,
including Poland, have legitimate
concerns over the sale of land, and, if so, does the Commission believe that these two concerns should
form the basis of reciprocal agreements for a period of no longer than seven years, with options for
individual states to reduce these periods by mutual agreement?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2002)

The Commission would like to recall that its role in the Accession negotiations is limited to preparing the
Union’s position for subsequent adoption by Member States. It is therefore the Member States who
negotiate with applicant countries. However the Commission can confirm that negotiations are being
conducted by Member States on the basis of a seven-year transition arrangement for the free movement of
workers, the essential elements of which are outlined below.

During the first two years national measures will be applied by all current Member States to new Member
States. Following this period, reviews will be held to decide whether to apply the acquis. The transition
period should come to an end after five years, but it may be prolonged for a further two years if there are
serious disturbances on the labour market, or threat thereof, of the current Member State concerned. In
addition, safeguards may be applied by Member States up to the end of the seventh year.

The transition arrangement also includes a number of other important aspects, such as a standstill clause,
preference for candidate country nationals over non-Community labour, a declaration by Member States
that they will endeavour to grant increased labour market access under national law and the right of
Austria and Germany to apply flanking national measures in specific sensitive service sectors.

The Union has not requested a transition period in relation to Malta and Cyprus. However for all other
countries where negotiations are under way, a common approach is put forward. On this basis, the
chapter free movement of persons has been provisionally closed with the Czech Republic, Hungary,
Poland, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia.

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/41

As for the acquisition of land, the Commission has recognised the political sensitivity of, in particular, the
purchase of agricultural land in certain candidate countries. Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and
Bulgaria have been granted a seven-year transitional period with a revision after three years for the
acquisition of agricultural land. The three Baltic States, Slovenia, Cyprus and Malta have not negotiated any
transitional arrangements for agricultural land while negotiations are ongoing with Poland and Romania.
Special attention has been paid to self employed farmers from the Member States who reside in the
candidate country and who in principle will be able to purchase agricultural
land from the date of
accession. Nothing prevents candidate countries from shortening or giving up the transitional period.

Each chapter is negotiated separately and the transitional arrangements only reflect the concern expressed
by either party in each particular chapter. There is therefore no reciprocity between the agreements found
under free movement of persons and free movement of capital. Moreover, the duration of transitional
measures under specific chapters depends on the specificity of each case and may vary from country to
country.

(2002/C 229 E/042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3635/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(11 January 2002)

Subject: Terrorisation of Turkish Cypriots by the Denktash regime

According to reports in the Greek press, the ‘Ministry of Education’ in Denktash’s pseudo-state has decided
to suspend Nilgun Orhon, a history teacher, because of an article she wrote in the Avrupa newspaper,
published in occupied Cyprus. Invoking laws which are only used in military dictatorships, the Denktash
regime has accused Orhon of having written that ‘Turkey, as an occupying power, has taken all their
freedoms away from Turkish Cypriots and does not permit them a voice on matters which concern them’.
She also maintained that freedom, peace, democracy and the Parliament exist in name only in the northern
part of Cyprus.

It should be noted that during demonstrations by Turkish Cypriot teachers and unionists against the
‘Ministry of Education’ decision to suspend the history teacher, there were arrests by the Denktash regime’s
‘police’, run by the Turkish military. The ‘police’ attempted to arrest Orhon as, disregarding the decision,
she was going to her school to teach, and Aydan Ersalan, the general secretary of the teachers’ union, was
clubbed as he tried to help her.

What is the Council’s position concerning the Denktash regime’s fascist decisions? What steps does it
intend to take to prevent recurrences of similar incidents in the future? Will it raise the issue with Turkey,
whose army has been occupying the northern part of Cyprus for 27 years, and if so, when?

Reply

(27 June 2002)

Mrs Orkhon’s case has not been discussed by the Council. Nevertheless, in general and in keeping with the
positions which it has always adopted on the defence of human rights, the Council would remind the
Honourable Member that freedom of expression is one such right which must be protected and that any
violation of those rights is reprehensible. This same position was reiterated at the recent meeting of the
EC-Turkey Association Council on 16 April 2002 and is found again in the ECHR judgment of 10 May
2001 in Case No 25781/94: Cyprus v. Turkey.

Furthermore, the Council is keen to place its reply in the overall context of developments in the situation
in Cyprus which led it, at
to welcome the meetings between
Mr Denktash and Mr Clerides on 4 and 5 December 2001, and at its meeting on 28 January 2002, to
describe the dialogue established between both communities as very encouraging.

its meeting on 10 December 2001,