WRITTEN QUESTION E-1991/02 by Michael Gahler (PPE-DE), Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE),Neil Parish (PPE-DE), Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE)and Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The implementation of smart sanctions against selected members of the Mugabe regime.
Date: 2002-07-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU visa policy, South Africa, Southern Africa, Zimbabwe, application of EU law, economic consequence, economic sanctions, freedom of movement, international sanctions

C 192 E/38

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

Supplementary answer
given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Further to the preliminary answer sent to the Honourable Member, the Commission is sending direct to
him and to Parliament’s Secretariat a detailed analysis of the Union’s accounts for each of the 1998, 1999,
2000, 2001 and 2002 financial years, which provides the requested information for each of
the
organisations concerned. This analysis was conducted using the SINCOM2 accounting system.

The Commission has registered 1575 payments,
throughout the Union.

totalling EUR 154,5 million,

to 139 organisations

(2003/C 192 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1991/02

by Michael Gahler (PPE-DE), Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE),
Neil Parish (PPE-DE), Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE)
and Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: The implementation of ‘smart sanctions’ against selected members of the Mugabe regime

Can the Commission clarify the precise extent of the asset ban and the travel freeze imposed on associates
of President Mugabe and their families by the European Union in February of this year? Do the sanctions
prevent family members of the listed associates from visiting the European Union or pursuing courses of
study at educational institutions within the European Union?

There are reports that the Zimbabwean Commissioner of Police attended an Interpol summit in Lyons. Are
those reports accurate and, if so, was the visit allowed to take place because of a prior international treaty
commitment on the part of the French government or was there a discretionary element in the French
government’s decision?

There were also reports that two Zimbabwe government ministers entered the United Kingdom early in
May. Are those reports correct, and,
if so, were those visits consistent with the sanctions? Does the
Commission have knowledge of any breaches of the sanctions on the part of any Member State?

Finally, has the Commission discussed with the South African government the full
implications for
Southern Africa of any further deterioration of the Zimbabwean economy and the likely consequences for
South Africa itself if it fails to apply pressure on Robert Mugabe to give up power and allow a new
government to end the destructive economic and social policies currently pursued by his regime?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2002)

According to Council Regulation (EC) No 310/2002 of 18 February 2002 concerning certain restrictive
measures in respect of Zimbabwe (1) ‘all funds, other financial assets or economic resources belonging to
individual members of the Government of Zimbabwe and to any natural or legal persons, entities or
bodies associated with them as listed in Annex I (of the regulation), shall be frozen’. Annex 1 as revised by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1345/2002 of 24 July 2002 (2) only contains names of specific members
of the Government of Zimbabwe and certain officials as well as the spouse of Robert Mugabe. Funds, other
financial assets or economic resources belonging spouses and children of other persons on the list are not
affected by the Regulation.

The visa ban is laid down in the Council Common Position 2002/145/CFSP of 18 February 2002
concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe as amended by Council Common Position 2002/600/
CFSP (3), and is therefore implemented by the Member States.

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/39

Through various demarches and in particular through the Union high level troika to South Africa of
21 May 2002, the Union has discussed the full implications for Southern Africa of the present instability
and of a further deterioration of the Zimbabwean economy in terms of disinvestment, refugee flows, and
other consequences. The Union has reiterated its willingness to support the inter-party dialogue promoted
by South Africa and Nigeria, to support the population and an orderly land reform process, as illustrated
in the final conclusions of the June 2002 General Affairs Council.

(1) OJ L 50, 21.2.2002.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1345/2002 of 24 July 2002 amending for the second time Council Regulation

(EC) No 310/2002 (cid:1) OJ L 196, 25.7.2002.

(3) OJ L 195, 24.7.2002.

(2003/C 192 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2010/02

by Patsy Sörensen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 July 2002)

Subject: Expulsion of Romanian minors

Is the Commission aware that Belgium in particular is deporting Romanian children to their country of
origin because they have committed offences under pressure from criminal organisations?

Is the Commission aware that one of the reasons is that these often very young children cannot be charged
or held under Belgian law?

Is it correct that in the country of origin there is no provision for the children so that they frequently end
up in criminal circles or living on the streets?

What steps and/or measures is the Commission considering to counter these practices and how, given the
current projects for street children, could it help to ensure that these children are taken care of in an
appropriate manner on their return?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2002)

The Commission is aware of the issue raised by the Honourable Member and of the fact that Belgium is
executing a number of juvenile court judgements on the return of unaccompanied Romanian minors to
their country of origin.

There is no specific Community legislation on the treatment of unaccompanied third-country minors in
Member States covering matters such as the conditions for their reception, stay and return.
Instead
Member States are invited to take account of guidelines on this subject which have been established by a
Council Resolution (1).

In the case referred to by the Honourable Member, the Belgian authorities have explained that these
decisions were made with a view to taking the children away from the criminal organisations that
controlled them and to facilitate their re-integration in their home environment. Alternatives, such as
placing the minors in specialised centres in Belgium, would have not been in the best interest of the child
for practical reasons (unfamiliar environment, language problems, …).

According to the above-mentioned Council Resolution, irrespective of their legal status unaccompanied
minors who are nationals of third countries and find themselves in a Member State are entitled to
protection and basic care in accordance with the provisions of national law. However, where a minor is
not allowed by national law to stay in a Member State, the State concerned may only return the minor to
his/her country of origin if on arrival therein adequate reception and care are available. These can be
provided by parents or other adults who take care of the child, or by governmental or non-governmental
bodies.
the Member States should co-operate with the
authorities of the minor’s country of origin, with international organisations such as Unicef and, where

In such cases the competent authorities of