WRITTEN QUESTION E-1141/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Expulsions, homelessness and furthering of ethnic differences as a result of outside interference in the two entities of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Date: 2002-04-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bosnia and Herzegovina, EU relations, deportee, ethnic discrimination, expulsion from housing, forced migration, homelessness, ownership, right to housing

C 309 E/90

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

(2002/C 309 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1141/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(22 April 2002)

Subject: Expulsions, homelessness and furthering of ethnic differences as a result of outside interference in

the two entities of Bosnia-Herzegovina

Can the Council confirm that in 2002 in both the Serbian and the Muslim-Croat entities of the
1.
Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina an active expulsion policy has been initiated whereby people have to leave
their houses at short notice if they cannot prove legal ownership and that this policy particularly affects
those who, after losing or being forced to leave their old house in areas where their ethnic group was in a
minority, have found safety in empty housing in areas where their ethnic group forms a majority?

2.
Can the Council also confirm that these expulsions take place even if as a result the house which has
been evacuated then remains empty as the original residents, provided they survived the war, now prefer
to live in areas where they feel safer because their ethnic group is not in a minority?

3.
How many people would be added to the current 450 000 ‘internal’ refugees in Bosnia and
Herzegovina if this expulsion policy were implemented consistently for every house to which it could be
applied?

4.
To what extent do the bodies which interfere from outside in the affairs of this country, including
the European Union, bear some of the responsibility for this policy of forced reverse ethnic cleansing,
which is hated by those affected of all ethnic groups and which is once again causing misery for people
because of their ethnic background and providing fertile ground for bitterness against people of other
ethnic groups?

5.
Does the Council see any means of encouraging property rights to be settled, in a manner which is
acceptable to all, through discussion, voluntary sale and exchange of properties so that as many people as
possible can continue living peacefully in the place for which they now have a preference?

6. What additional initiatives does the Council plan to help prevent future problems of homelessness,
movements of refugees and ethnic conflicts?

Source: TV Nederland 3, ‘Nova’ news programme, 5.4.2002.

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council does not have information that ‘an active expulsion policy took place in both entities of
Bosnia and Herzegovina’. Nevertheless, the Council welcomes the interest shown by the Honourable
Parliamentarian in the issues of refugee return.

Annex 7 of the Dayton/Paris General Framework Agreement deals with the refugees and displaced person.
The signatories, which were the conflicting parties, agreed therein that all refugees and displaced persons
had the right to return freely to their homes of origin and that they had the right to have their property, of
which they had been deprived in the course of hostilities since 1991, restored or to be compensated for
any property that could not cannot be restored to them. The Parties stipulated that the return of refugees
and displaced persons was an important objective of
in Bosnia and
Herzegovina.

the settlement of the conflict

This evaluation is shared by the EU, which has repeatedly stated the importance it attached to the right of
return, last at its 15 April meeting. All other policy would in effect only consolidate the results achieved
by the ethnic cleansing launched during the war. If those who are obliged to leave properties, which is not
theirs, might feel resentful, those who are still denied access to their property of which they cleansed
during the war certainly feel far bitterer.

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)