WRITTEN QUESTION E-0539/02 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Role of Commissioners.
Date: 2002-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commissioner, Greece, duties of civil servants, freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, political morality

C 309 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

(2002/C 309 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0530/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 February 2002)

Subject: Immunity and the European Arrest Warrant

To avoid the kind of protracted legal dispute that ensued in the U.K. following the arrest of former
President Pinochet despite an International Treaty commitment on the part of the U.K. government not to
arrest current or former heads of government (superseded in the opinion of a majority of Law Lords by a
later international commitment) can the Commission list the persons who will be immune from arrest
under the terms of the European Arrest Warrant, and make it absolutely clear in the legislation whether
this will include EU diplomats, current and former heads of state, government ministers, members of
national Parliaments, the European Parliament and the European Commission?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2002)

A political agreement on the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant was reached by the
Council on 12 December 2001. The Parliament approved the proposal (1) at the start of February 2002,
and formal adoption is planned for April or May 2002.

Article 17c of the Framework Decision provides that when the requested person enjoys a privilege or
immunity, a European arrest warrant cannot be executed unless the executing judicial authority is
informed that the privilege or immunity has been waived.

The authority competent to waive the immunity can either be, depending on the type of privilege or
immunity, the executing State (for example if the requested person benefits from a specific immunity as a
Member of Parliament or government minister) or another State. In the first case, the executing judicial
authority shall send a request to the authority competent to waive the immunity. In the second case, it is
up to the issuing judicial authority to make the necessary request to the competent authority, to waive the
immunity. If it is possible regarding the specific status of the person who enjoys the immunity, and if the
law of the executing Member State so permits, the necessary measures to ensure that the effective
surrender could take place shall be taken. In any event, apart from immunity conferred by international
conventions (such as the UCDR 1964) (2), the provisions on immunity vary from Member State to Member
State and are governed by national law.

Regarding the specific issue of immunity, Article 4(7) paragraph 2 should also be mentioned. Under this
Article, the executing State is not obliged to execute the European arrest warrant when the offence was
committed outside the territory of the issuing Member State and when the law of the executing Member
State does not allow prosecution for the same offences when committed outside the territory of the
executing Member State. This could for example entitle a Member State not to provide assistance through
the execution of a European arrest warrant, when another Member State has applied a universal
jurisdiction clause which would not be applicable for the same type of case in the executing State.

(1) OJ C 332 E, 27.11.2001.
(2) Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations from 1961, entry into force 1964.

(2002/C 309 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0539/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2002)

Subject: Role of Commissioners

Last week, Commissioner Diamantopoulou attended a party rally for the youth wing of the governing
party PASOK at which she launched a vehement and bitter attack on a number of leading Greek
intellectuals who had criticised her for her views on establishing English as the second official language in
Greece.

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/27

The tone and acrimonious nature of her views were sharply criticised in Greece and many were left to
wonder whether Commissioners could attend party functions, bitterly attack eminent individuals who take
a different view from their own and interfere in the political life of their country. It should be borne in
mind that six months ago Mrs Diamantopoulou also attacked the Archbishop of Athens, the Most
Reverend Christodoulos, who held a different view from the government on the matter of identity cards
and the protection of civil rights.

This issue, in fact, has no connection whatever with Mrs Diamantopoulou’s sphere of responsibility, which
is EU social policy, and her conduct has rightly raised questions in the Member States about her future and
her effectiveness following the Commission’s recent calculation that 20 million additional jobs must be
created (11 million of them for women) to achieve the EU’s target of full employment.

What is the Commission’s view of Commissioners interfering in party political debate in the Member
States? How does it react to Mrs Diamantopoulou’s scornful description of leading intellectuals (such as the
philologist Sarantos Kargakos) who command all-round respect for their progressive and democratic
credentials as ‘nationalists’. Is such an acrimonious tone consistent with the low-key, high-quality approach
to policy-making that the Commission is seeking to consolidate?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

As the Commission has had frequent occasion to recall in reply to written and oral questions by Members
of Parliament, the Members of the Commission are politicians carrying out a political function, who, while
honouring the obligations imposed by this function, remain free to express their personal opinions quite
independently and on their own responsibility.

The Code of Conduct for Commissioners states that ‘Commissioners may be active members of political
parties or trade unions, provided that this does not compromise their availability for service in the
Commission.’

(2002/C 309 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0568/02

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Fraud in respect of dairy-product exports to Andorra

(22 February 2002)

At the end of last year the EU’s anti-fraud office (OLAF) carried out an investigation in cooperation with
the Spanish authorities in order to ascertain whether or not any fraud had been committed in respect of
certain dairy-product exports to third countries (specifically Andorra), and whether or not refunds had
been paid to Community companies.

Would the Commission say what stage has been reached in the investigation and whether or not Spanish
or Andorran companies are involved in the alleged fraud?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) was informed in March 2000 by the competent Belgian
authorities of problems involving butter marketed in Andorra exported by a Spanish firm which had
collected the accompanying export refunds.

In effect the product sold was margarine fraudulently presented as butter.