WRITTEN QUESTION E-1062/02 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council. Seats of the EU Institutions.
Date: 2002-04-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU institution, seat of institution

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/31

(2003/C 52 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1031/02

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Human rights

Given the absence of a specific human rights mechanism within the new framework of cooperation
between the EU and its Mediterranean partner countries, and despite the stated intention to base
cooperation on human rights, could the Council indicate how it intends to address such human rights
issues generally and, in the case of Algeria, specifically?

Reply

(5 November 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that, in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean
Partnership, human rights issues are raised through national and regional presentations at meetings of the
Senior Officials responsible for monitoring the Barcelona Process. Those officials hold exchanges of views
on the implementation of international agreements on the matter. The Valencia Action Plan adopted on
23 April 2002 provides for the continuation of that dialogue and calls on the Senior Officials to look into
ways of improving its structure and reinforcing it in order to increase its effectiveness in the framework of
the Partnership.

In the context of the bilateral relations that it has established with the Mediterranean countries, notably
through Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreements, the Council addresses those questions regularly both
as regards the principles and, if necessary, with regard to specific cases. Respect for human rights is a vital
element in those Agreements, and one on which the Parties’ internal and external policies must be based.
In addition, those agreements institutionalise regular political dialogue at various levels on all subjects of
common interest.

Such an Agreement was signed with Algeria in Valencia on 22 April 2002 and will enter into force after
receiving the assent of the European Parliament and being ratified by the Parliaments of the Member
States. Meanwhile, the Council is continuing the political dialogue with Algeria at ministerial level which it
began three years ago. In the body in question, where it is represented by the Troika, the Council regularly
discusses with the Algerian authorities issues relating to respect for human rights and strongly urges that
slippage and abuse in the context of the fight against terrorism be avoided. The Council has pointed out
repeatedly that it is concerned by the reports on arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial arrests, the use of
torture and the fate of missing persons. At
the political dialogue meeting held in Brussels on
5 December 2001, it asked Algeria for information on the fate of a number of missing persons and
called on it to cooperate with the UN and NGO mechanisms in the field of human rights. A similar
meeting took place in Algiers on 5 June 2002 and provided a fresh opportunity to continue discussing
those issues with the Algerian authorities.

(2003/C 52 E/040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1062/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Seats of the EU Institutions

Every EU Treaty makes specific reference to the seats of the European Institutions. A debate is held on that
subject at every Intergovernmental Conference which precedes a new Treaty and the ensuing decisions are
incorporated in the text of the Treaty. The Conference which began in Brussels on 28 February 2002 is to
pave the way for a revision of the modus operandi of the Union’s institutions and for enlargement.

C 52 E/32

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

What view does the Council take of the Conference discussing the possibility of transferring some of the
Union’s institutions to cities other than Brussels and Luxembourg, such as the more historic capitals in the
Union, e.g. Rome, Berlin, Paris and Athens? Would it be possible to hold such a discussion at the
Conference and to take decisions to move the seats of some of the main institutions of the Union?

Reply

(5 November 2002)

Under Article 289 of the TEC, the seat of the institutions is determined by common accord of the
Governments of the Member States. The seat was determined by the Protocol on the location of the seats
of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Communities, annexed to the
Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Community, the European Coal
and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community.

The matter is not raised in the Laeken Declaration on the future of the European Union.

(2003/C 52 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1078/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Cross-border rail link between Groningen and Bremen; long delays in replacing the section of the

track between Nieuweschans and Leer

Does the Commission recall my question No E-0178/00 (1) of 31 January 2000 concerning
1.
suspension of the rail service between Groningen in the Netherlands and the German connecting station
of Leer on the line to Bremen following the upgrading of 17 kms of track between the border towns of
Nieuweschans and Weener, and your answer of 30 March 2000 with the reassuring conclusion that
upgrading of the section of the track would be carried out during 2000, after which the rail companies DB
Regio and NoordNed would operate the route?

2.
Is the Commission aware that since its answer to my question the train service was suspended from
28 May 2000 until 1 December 2000 but that services cannot be resumed because replacing the much
neglected track did not start until the second half of 2001?

To what extent are these delays and obstacles caused by German and Dutch plans which keep
3.
cropping up concerning the construction of a maglev line (TransRapid)
linking Amsterdam, Lelystad,
Groningen, Bremen, Hamburg, Schwerin and Berlin which would involve shifting existing traffic flows to a
border crossing near Nieuweschans and Leer? Do these plans still play a serious role in the decisions on
the future of the conventional railway between Groningen and Bremen?

4.
Does this section of the track, including stations, bridges and level crossings, now comply with all the
standards for improvement that were stipulated when financial aid was granted in the framework of the
trans-European transport network and the Interreg programme? Have all the funds made available by the
EU since been spent for the purposes for which they were intended? If not, why not?

5.
Are there still any technical reasons, apart from the disputes relating to operation of the line referred
to in the following questions, preventing the rail service from being resumed on this section of the track
without delay?

Source: ‘Het Openbaar Vervoer / Railnieuws’, Volume 45 No 522, March 2002, rail@wanadoo.nl

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 98.