WRITTEN QUESTION P-1160/02 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Arms embargo on Israel: halting military cooperation with Israel.
Date: 2002-04-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, Israel, arms industry, cooperation agreement (EU), military aircraft, scientific cooperation

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/91

for Refugees

The international community deals with those issues within the OHR-led Reconstruction and Return Task
Force (RRTF), an inter-agency body that was established in 1997. It brings together the OHR, the United
Nations’ High Commissioner
the European
(UNHCR),
Commission’s Humanitarian Office (ECHO), the governments of Germany, the United States and the
Netherlands, the World Bank, the United Nations Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) and its
IPTF, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP), the International Management Group (IMG), the International Organisation for Migration
(IOM), the Commission for Real Property Claims of Displaced Persons and Refugees (CRPC) and SFOR. It is
to be cleared that the Council is not a member of this body.

the European Commission,

While not being a member of this body, the Council will try to answer the questions of the Honourable
Parliamentarian to its best abilities.

Since the introduction of the property laws in 1998, all people living in properties belonging to and
claimed by displaced persons and refugees have been obliged to vacate them within set deadlines. Those
deadlines depended on the status of the occupant of the property, and vary from 90 days (combined
sometimes with the right to alternative accommodation by the municipalities depending on the social
situation of the occupant) to 15 days (for those who were using the property illegally and/or are able to
accommodate themselves). According to OHR, the overwhelming majority of people asked to vacant
foreign property are able to provide for themselves (being either in possession of their own property, or
family property, or having sufficient incomes to rent).

The legislation was not always applied correctly by the local authorities, which were not necessarily eager
to actively reverse the results of the war. The High Representative in Bosnia-Herzegovine, W. Petritsch,
amended in December 2001 the property laws by tightening the criteria in order to ensure that the
authorities are less able to manipulate or obstruct the administrative process.

The aim of the property laws is to enable all claimants to repossess their properties by ending the huge-
scale dispossession pushed through during the war. If the claimant does not choose to return to his/her
property, he or she may sell or rent it. No evidence has, since, been brought to the Council that this
legislation led to the situation described that the Honourable Parliamentarian in his question.

The process of property legislation implementation has gained momentum over the past years as local
acceptance and support increased. The EU welcomes this. This policy will however not result in an
increase of the number of 450 000 internal refugees, as affirmed by the Honourable Parliamentarian, as
that number already includes those who are occupying properties that are claimed by others.

The Reconstruction and Return Task Force,
in addition to working for the repossession of property,
focuses on enabling returnees to access all benefits and services necessary for normal reintegration into the
community (cid:1) healthcare, pensions, acceptable education, gainful employment opportunities, etc. The
Honourable Parliamentarian should revert his question directly to this entity for more detailed information.

(2002/C 309 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1160/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Arms embargo on Israel: halting military cooperation with Israel

Many EU countries have arrangements for cooperation with the Israeli defence industry, and thus support
its defence system. I would particularly draw attention to the EU’s support (under the Fifth Framework
Programme of Research and Technological Development) for research by an Israeli arms company (Israel
Aircraft
into civil applications of UAVs (unmanned air vehicles). The sum involved is
EUR 10 million divided between two programmes over a period of two and a half years. It is well

Industries)

C 309 E/92

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

known that arms companies can easily convert civil applications into military ones. In this case, the EU is
funding research to ascertain whether there are potential civil applications in addition to the military ones.

Bearing in mind the European Parliament’s resolution of 10 April 2002, will the Commission halt this
military cooperation between the EU and Israel and stop imports of the UAVs concerned? If so, with effect
from when? If not, how can the Commission explain its refusal?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2002)

UAV research is a minor activity of the 5th Framework programme’s key action ‘Aeronautics’ under the
Competitive and sustainable growth programme. The work carried out in this field is strictly confined to
the development of civil applications of UAVs. Community contribution to Israel Aircraft Industries in
these research activities amounts to less than EUR 1,5 million.

Cooperation with Israelian entities is undertaken under the umbrella of the scientific and technological
agreement existing between the Union and Israel for the 5th Framework programme, which specifically
excludes any type of military research. Therefore, no aspect of military cooperation between the Union and
Israel exist in the UAV projects concerned.

The research work focuses on advances of civil/commercial application of UAVs, in particular in areas
such as environmental monitoring, communication relays and Earth observation, as well as the safe
integration of civil UAV into Air Traffic management.

(2002/C 309 E/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1172/02

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Working time and leave of Commission officials

(24 April 2002)

The Commission has apparently concluded collective agreements with many trade unions. Have those
agreements laid down standard working time and leave for all officials and common rules governing
overtime, or are these matters regulated separately, depending on the individual agreements? With how
many trade unions does the Commission have agreements and in how many cases does it pay the salaries
of union staff?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2002)

The rules on standard working time, leave and overtime as applicable to officials are not determined by
collective agreements. They are established by the Staff Regulations, which are part of the body of
Community Law, and by their implementing provisions.

Since 1 October 1986 working time for full time officials has been formally established as 37,5 hours per
week. While efforts are made to adhere to this provision, the necessities of various tasks and the interests
of the Services mean that, in practice, large numbers of Commission staff work hours that are substantially
in excess of that figure.

Officials are entitled to annual leave of twenty-four working days per calendar year (1), plus one to six extra
days of leave (2) depending on their age and grade, and a maximum of 6 travelling days (3). An official may
also be granted special leave in particular circumstances