WRITTEN QUESTION P-1342/02 by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE) to the Council. Power-sharing dialogue in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Date: 2002-05-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Congo, Presidency of the Council of the EU, Spain, common foreign and security policy, political situation, settlement of disputes

C 309 E/112

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

(2002/C 309 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1323/02

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(2 May 2002)

Subject: European arrest warrant

The contents of proposals for the European arrest warrant were agreed last December by the Council of
Ministers. The Irish Attorney-General claimed last December at a conference in Trier, Germany that Ireland
had not been consulted. On what date was Ireland first consulted about this matter?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

On 19 September 2001 the Council received from the Commission a proposal for a Council Framework
Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member States.

This proposal (cid:1) like all legislative proposals made by the Commission (cid:1) was published (1).

The Council
formally adopted the Framework Decision at its meeting on 13 June 2002. The Irish
delegation had two statements entered in the minutes of the meeting. As a member of the Council, Ireland
took part in the (unanimous) adoption of the Decision.

(1) OJ C 332, 27.11.2001.

(2002/C 309 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1342/02

by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE) to the Council

Subject: Power-sharing dialogue in the Democratic Republic of Congo

(2 May 2002)

The closure on 19 April 2002 of the power-sharing dialogue in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
without a global agreement having been signed by all parties has left the national peace and reconciliation
process in suspense. A number of EU Member States have called on the representatives of the opposition
groups UDPS, PALU and FONUS to give their assent to the agreement signed by the DRC government, the
MLC led by Mr Bemba and other groups participating in the dialogue.

Has the Council taken a position on the matter?

Does the Spanish Presidency intend to take any initiative for the resumption of the power-sharing dialogue
in the Democratic Republic of Congo with the participation of all groups of delegates recognised under the
Lusaka agreement?

Does the Council support the partial agreement reached in Sun City?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council considers that the agreement signed at the meeting of the Inter-Congolese Dialogue in
Sun City, South Africa between the Government of the DRC and the MLC represents a positive step
towards a settlement of the conflict ravaging the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Council has
noted that the agreement was endorsed by many political opposition parties and representatives of sections
of civil society and regrets that some participants, in particular the RCD-Goma, would not undersign the
agreement. Consequently, the Council has invited all the Congolese parties to act responsibly, show a
willingness to compromise and abide by the framework established by the Lusaka Agreements and the
relevant United Nations resolutions.

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/113

The Council welcomes the desire expressed by the signatories to extend the agreement to all Congolese
parties and urges them to pursue negotiations without delay in a spirit of openness in order to reach an
all-inclusive agreement on the transitional institutions. The Council also calls on all countries in the region,
particularly Rwanda, to exert influence on all the Congolese parties, particularly the RCD-Goma, to ensure
that they respect and support the desire for peace, democracy and reconciliation expressed at Sun City.

It is recalled that the EU has already allocated EUR 3,2 million to the mediation efforts of the facilitator
Ketumile Masire, former President of Botswana as well as the organisation of the Inter-Congolese Dialogue.

(2002/C 309 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1352/02

by Didier Rod (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Incorporation of the European Development Fund (EDF) in the EU budget

According to our information, the Spanish Government is now the only EU government to object to the
incorporation of the EDF in the Community budget.

After 11 September, much attention has been paid and many promises have been made with regard to an
increase in development financing worldwide. At the same time, the Commission is undertaking an
extensive reform effort with a view to improving the performance of its external aid programmes.
However, the EDF, a cornerstone of EU relations with the South, continues to fall outside the remit of the
EU and remains in the hands of the Member States.

Why has the decisive move towards the incorporation of the EDF in the Community budget still not been
made? Does not the Council believe that, for the sake of a unified and coordinated approach, as well as in
the interest of higher efficiency, the EDF should be incorporated in the EU budget?

Has the Council planned any such move for the Johannesburg Summit to be held in late August as a
statement of European Union commitment to enhanced development aid and, if not, when can such an
initiative be expected?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council’s position on the budgetisation of the EDF was reaffirmed by the Council on 19 and
20 December 1994 and remains unchanged.

At that time, having examined the Commission report on the options and detailed arrangements for
budgetising the EDF, the Council took the view that the present provisions for financing the EDF should
not be altered. This position amounted only to a confirmation of Declaration No 12 annexed to the Treaty
on European Union concerning the EDF and the judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 March 1994 (1)
rejecting the Parliament’s appeal for the annulment of the rules of procedure of the 7th EDF.

In this context, attention should be drawn to the Court’s conclusion to the effect that EDF expenditure was
not Community expenditure which had to be entered in the Community budget.

The Council is not considering reopening this question at the present time.

It should nevertheless be pointed out that when the resources were fixed for the 9th EDF, the Commission
made a statement according to which it intends to transmit to the Council before 2003, after an analysis
of the present system, a communication assessing the advantages and drawbacks of the budgetisation of
the EDF.

The Council will not fail to examine that communication at that time.

(1) Case C-316/91, ECR I-625.