WRITTEN QUESTION P-1665/02 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Smart sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Date: 2002-06-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU visa policy, Zimbabwe, freedom of movement, international sanctions

C 52 E/86

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

The Commission adopted the said list on 5 April 2002 following a selection process based on the criteria
provided for by Regulation (EEC) No 178/2002. The Regulation provides that members should be
appointed in such a way as to secure the highest standards of competence, a broad range of relevant
expertise and, consistent with these criteria, the broadest possible geographical distribution within the
Union. The Regulation also provides that four of the members of the Management Board shall have their
background in organisations representing consumers and other interests in the food chain.

In the list adopted by the Commission, six candidates have backgrounds in organisations representing
consumers and six others in organisations representing other interest groups in the food chain. Of these
latter six, two have backgrounds in organisations representing the food industry, two in organisations
representing farmers and two in organisations representing commerce.

Consequently, the Commission list does indeed include candidates with backgrounds in the food industry.

Finally,
it should be emphasised that the members of the Management Board are not appointed as
representatives for a particular interest group but as individuals, and they must undertake to serve the
public interest and operate in a spirit of independence.

(1) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.

(2003/C 52 E/098)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1664/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Participants in the European Conventions

(4 June 2002)

Could the Commission please detail which of the organisations and networks of organisations taking part
in the Forum of the European Convention are funded or part-funded, directly or indirectly, by the
Commission or other European Union institution?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2002)

The list of participants in the Forum is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s
Secretariat.

The answer to the Honourable Member’s question concerning funding will require more detailed research
within the Commission. A supplementary answer will be supplied.

(2003/C 52 E/099)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1665/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Subject:

‘Smart sanctions’ against Zimbabwe

President Mugabe recently went to New York for a UN conference on child poverty and Augustine
Chihuri, chief of police and President Mugabe’s right-hand man, attended an Interpol conference in Lyon.

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/87

they were both given permission to travel because under current
Despite the sanctions imposed,
international treaty agreements Member States can make exceptions in the case of meetings of national
bodies.

Who gave permission in these two cases, and what purpose does it serve in these circumstances for Europe
to impose ‘smart sanctions’ against President Mugabe?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2002)

The issuing of visas is a matter for the national authorities concerned.

However, the Commission draws the attention of the Honourable member to the fact that the issue of
entry into the territories of Member States of the persons mentioned in the question is subject to Council
Common Position 2002/145/CFSP.

(2003/C 52 E/100)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1669/02

by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Intercountry adoptions (Ukraine)

Given that following enlargement the EU will share a border with Ukraine, cooperation relations have been
established with that country with a view to establishing a free trade area, as provided for in the PCA.
The EU is also encouraging Ukraine to ratify bilateral agreements with the Member States and (inter alia on
the basis of periodic reports by heads of mission) draws up assessments for the European Council at least
once a year.

In the field of intercountry adoptions (a means of providing assistance to children in cases where a foster
or adoptive family or appropriate other forms of assistance cannot be found for them in their countries of
origin), Ukraine has not concluded bilateral agreements with many of the EU Member States, does not
comply with the Hague Convention and, in general, takes a discretionary approach. This approach, which
severely penalises European couples and favours couples from the USA, turns the whole adoption process
into an uncontrollable commercial transaction.

Ukraine is nonetheless in receipt of Community funds and since 2001 the IOM has, in conjunction with
the OSCE’s ODIHR and the Ukrainian Ombudsman’s Office, been conducting a project aimed a preventing
trafficking in human beings, which has also been made a priority by Europol.

Given the above, would the Commission state:

(cid:1) what guarantees it has sought from the Ukrainian Government to the effect that intercountry adoption

procedures will be conducted in accordance with the Hague Convention?

(cid:1) what political action it intends to take with a view to ensuring that adoption is placed on a proper
legal footing and that an end is put to the discretionary approach currently taken to the selection of
couples, which is based more on the size of the fee paid than on any proof of reliability and
psychological aptitude?

(cid:1) what statistics on adoption are currently in its possession?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 July 2002)

Union-Ukraine relations are governed by the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement
(PCA) which
entered into force in 1998. The PCA provides for regular political dialogue, trade liberalisation and wide