WRITTEN QUESTION E-0127/02 by Rolf Berend (PPE-DE) to the Commission. CREAM, a firm with its registered office in Luxembourg.
Date: 2002-01-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Luxembourg, contract, private sector, technology

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/21

(2002/C 277 E/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0119/02

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(22 January 2002)

Subject: Association agreements with non-EU countries

Would the Commission comment as to whether the human rights clauses of
the EU Association
agreements with non-EU countries have ever been invoked? If they have, could the Commission provide
full details of each case? If they have not, could the Commission justify their non-application?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2002)

There have been several Commission communications on the question raised by the Honourable Member,
particularly the one about the human rights clause in the agreements (1). The most recent of these
communications was ‘The European Union’s role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third
countries’ (2).

The human rights clause has been included systematically in all cooperation and association agreements
third countries. As emphasised in the
concluded since 1995 between the Union and various
communications mentioned, the primary purpose of the clause is to promote cooperation and dialogue
with our partners on the question of respecting and promoting human rights.

In this respect the clause has been duly implemented in the appropriate form in bilateral relations between
the Union acting through the Commission and the countries concerned. Whether through political
dialogue or in relations with applicant countries, the human rights issue has always been, and will
continue to be, an essential factor.

The Union has association agreements with a large number of European and Mediterranean countries. As
there are many facets to these relations it would be difficult if not impossible to provide the details of each
case as the Honourable Member requests. However, the Union’s report on human rights, published
annually by the Council in close cooperation with the Commission, includes many references to occasions
when the clause has been taken into account in external relations.

Recently (13 December 2001) the Council adopted guidelines 5 including advice on this issue 5 on
conducting dialogue with third countries. The positive approach to implementing the clause does not
preclude the possibility of
imposing negative measures and, particularly in the event of serious or
persistent violation of human rights, going so far as to suspend an agreement. So far this step has not been
taken in connection with any association agreement.

(1) COM(95) 216 final.
(2) COM(2001) 252 final.

(2002/C 277 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0127/02

by Rolf Berend (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2002)

Subject: CREAM, a firm with its registered office in Luxembourg

CREAM (Community Research European Aid Management), which has its registered office in Luxembourg,
is apparently offering to arrange EU funding for other firms for a fee of € 100 000, plus 1,5 % commission
if successful. Its contract forms are signed ‘CREAM EuropeAid’. However,
inquiries with Creditreform
revealed its business object to be ‘sales and technical advice in the field of waste gas technology using
infrared measuring devices’.

Is the Commission aware of this firm’s activities, and is this type of business legal?

C 277 E/22

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2002)

According to the inquiries made, the Commission is not aware of the firm referred to by the Honorourable
Member.

(2002/C 277 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0135/02

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2002)

Subject: Commission proposals for EU action on Haiti’s economic future

Haiti is the poorest country in Latin America. It is a country of around seven million inhabitants. Its
landscape has been devastated by forestry destruction and corruption and illiteracy are rife. Nevertheless,
the coming to power of Jean-Bertrand Aristide brought fresh hope to a country without electric light,
drainage or hospitals, although the prosperity promised by the liberation theologian priest has yet to
materialise.

After the fall of the Duvalier regime and the hopes generated by Aristide, the scare provided by the recent
coup attempt in the country illustrates that the international community must do something to help the
country to curb poverty and become less prone to totalitarian takeover attempts.

With this in view, what proposals will the Commission make to help Haiti to reduce poverty and enable
democracy to gain a firmer foothold, as called for in many parts of the globe, and what future plans does
it have to establish a medium- and long-term development plan for the country?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2002)

Following the general elections held in 2000, the Organisation of American States (OAS), called on by the
international community to observe the elections, noted various irregularities and instances of fraud in the
electoral process. Despite various statements and demarches by the EU, the Haitian authorities refused to
reconsider the outcome of the elections. The Council therefore called on the government of Haiti to enter
into consultations under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement in order to review the situation in detail
and find out how Haiti intended to comply with the essential elements referred to in Article 9 of the
Agreement, in particular the provisions on democratic principles and the rule of law.

Following these consultations and in view of the failure of the Haitian authorities to take account of the
EU’s concerns, the Council decided to take a range of appropriate measures as regards its cooperation with
Haiti. Direct budget aid to the government and major infrastructure programmes were suspended, but a
significant part of
the Community cooperation programme is not affected by the decision (social
programme, support for NGOs).

The measures were taken with the objective of not penalising the Haitian people. The Council decision of
24-25 January 2002 thus provides for a gradual reactivation of all cooperation instruments once an
agreement has been reached between the coalition in power and the opposition and once it has been
implemented via, inter alia, the holding of general and local elections.

The fight against poverty is at the core of the Commission’s cooperation strategy in Haiti. Via the
cooperation instruments available and the dialogue between donors and the government, the Commission
has encouraged the introduction of sustainable development policies in the country. However, the fight
against poverty will not really be possible or effective unless political stability is achieved and that is why
such importance is attached to the re-establishment of the democratic process in Haiti.