WRITTEN QUESTION E-2069/02 by Bob van den Bos (ELDR)and Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Council. Treaty of Accession.
Date: 2002-07-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Accession Treaty, accession to the European Union, enlargement of the Union

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/131

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

The EU and the Commission have repeatedly emphasised to China the need for China to respect cultural
throughout China. The
and linguistic rights,
Commission has also asked China to start a direct dialogue between the Beijing authorities and the Dalai
Lama as it believes strongly that resolution of the Tibetan situation can best be achieved through this.

freedom and the protection of minorities

religious

The Commission has raised the case of Ngawang Sangdrol with the Chinese authorities in the framework
of the bilateral EU-China human rights dialogue. Unfortunately although the Chinese authorities have
provided information concerning her sentencing and imprisonment,
they have not yet provided a
satisfactory reply concerning her present treatment.

The Commission will continue to raise the case of Ngawang Sangdrol at every suitable opportunity,
including at the highest level.

(2003/C 92 E/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2069/02

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR)
and Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Council

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Treaty of Accession

Paragraph 22 of the Conclusions of the Seville European Council refers to a ‘Treaty of Accession’, while
paragraph 10 of the Conclusions of the Laeken European Council refers to ‘accession treaties’.

1.

Can the Council confirm that just one Treaty of Accession is being drawn up?

If so, when was the decision taken that just one Treaty of Accession would be drawn up, and on the

2.
basis of what considerations is just one Treaty of Accession being drawn up?

Does the Council agree that precedent cannot be invoked in this instance because what is at issue

3.
here is the simultaneous accession of up to ten countries?

How does the principle of the individual assessment of the various applicant countries square with

4.
the inclusion of all the applicant countries in just one Treaty of Accession?

Does the Council share our view that the democratic scrutiny of the accession process is being
5.
adversely affected, since the national parliaments may say simply ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ to the entire Treaty and not
to individual applicant countries? Does the Council feel that this constitutes a good example of democratic
procedure to be setting the applicant countries?

Does the Council still intend to give the national parliaments a say in the individual assessment of

6.
the applicant countries? If so, how will it do so?

Reply

(19 December 2002)

As the Honourable Members are certainly aware, the Luxembourg European Council launched the current
enlargement process as a comprehensive and inclusive process. This approach has been regularly
confirmed at the level of the European Council ever since.

The structure of the legal instruments giving effect to accession has remained the same in every previous
enlargement of the European Union, where more than one country acceded: a short Treaty of Accession
provides that the new Member States are to become members of the European Union and on the
conditions set out in an annexed Act of Accession. This approach was most recently confirmed by the
European Council in Seville. It should be noted that the Treaty of Accession is an international agreement,
which is ratified by the existing and new Member States as sovereign States, in accordance with their
constitutional procedures.

C 92 E/132

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

The principle of differentiation whereby the individual candidate countries are judged solely on their own
merits remains fully applicable. The European Council in autumn 2002 will therefore decide, on the basis
of the Regular Reports to be submitted by the Commission, which will be the candidate countries with
which negotiations can be concluded at the end of 2002. Furthermore, only those countries which
successfully conclude negotiations on the basis of the principle of differentiation will be party to the Treaty
of Accession.

By virtue of Article 49, first paragraph of the TEU, the applications from those countries are subject to the
assent of the European Parliament.

(2003/C 92 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2071/02

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: European Region of the Year

(8 July 2002)

Does the Commission know the organisation called ‘European Region of the Year’ and if so, can it confirm
whether this organisation has anything in common with the designation of European cultural capitals
which the Council decides on according to a binding legal basis.

Can the Commission confirm whether its President Romano Prodi has backed this initiative on the
Commission’s behalf or has granted it any institutional support and, if so, on what legal basis?

Can it confirm that Mr Prodi is a seconded member of the organisation or of the international panel which
chose the Balearics and Karelia as the European regions for the year 2003? If not, has any other
Commissioner or Commission official been delegated to replace him?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2002)

The Commission was informed of the existence of the body entitled Organization of the European Region
of the Year through a letter from its President to the Commission President. This organisation has nothing
at all to do with the process of designating European cultural capitals.

The Organization of the European Region of the Year is a body governed by private law. It has received no
support from the Commission.

An official of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional Policy was invited in a personal capacity
to serve on the jury to name the European region of the year. Only three regions (Karelia, Balearics,
Lower Danube) submitted application files and since none of the three proposals met all the criteria set by
the organisation it has decided to issue a fresh call for applications in the hope of obtaining enough to
make a choice on a wider basis.

(2003/C 92 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2075/02

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 July 2002)

Subject: European border police force

The Presidency Conclusions from the Seville Summit make reference to a ‘European border police force’.