WRITTEN QUESTION E-2070/02 by Bob van den Bos (ELDR)and Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Commission. Treaty of Accession.
Date: 2002-07-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EU Accession Treaty, EU Member State, European Commission, European Parliament, accession negotiations, enlargement of the Union, negotiation of an agreement (EU), signature of an agreement

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/47

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

The EU has raised the case of Rebiya Kader in the context of the human rights dialogue with China and
has been informed about her sentencing and imprisonment. Unfortunately, the Chinese authorities have
not given any information concerning her present situation. The Commission will continue to raise this
case at every opportunity.

The Commission also emphasises the need for China to respect cultural and linguistic rights, religious
freedoms and the protection of minorities throughout China.

The Commission has no co-operation programmes in Xingjiang.

(2003/C 192 E/045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2070/02

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

(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 Commission 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 Commission agree that precedent cannot be invoked in this instance because what is at

3.
issue 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?

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

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

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

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(20 August 2002)

The Commission can confirm that a single accession Treaty is being drawn up. The conclusion by Member
States of a single accession Treaty with several candidate countries that accede to the Union at the same
time is a standard procedure. Such a procedure has been used for the accession of Denmark, Ireland and
the United Kingdom which took effect on 1 January 1973, for the accession of Portugal and Spain which
took effect on 1 January 1986, and for the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden which took effect on
1 January 1995. In each case, one single Accession Treaty was approved.

If several States accede at the same time,
it would indeed not suffice to establish the required legal
relationship between any single future Member State on the one hand and the current Member States on
the other hand, since it is also necessary to create the required legal links between the acceding States
themselves. Moreover, there are a great number of common provisions, annexes and protocols which it
would otherwise be necessary to repeat as many times as there are new Member States acceding.

C 192 E/48

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

The Presidency Conclusions of the Seville European Council (21/22 June 2002) state, in paragraph 22, that
the ‘drafting of the Treaty of Accession should continue so that it can be completed as soon as possible
after the conclusion of the accession negotiations. It would seem reasonable to expect that the Treaty of
Accession could be signed in spring 2003’. The Commission also recalls the Note from the Presidency on
enlargement annexed to the Conclusions that states that ‘in line with the conclusions of the European
Council in Laeken (14/15 December 2001), the drafting of the accession Treaty has started in March’. It
should be recognised that it is not the Commission but the Council that is the major actor in this respect.

The Commission refers to the intergovernmental nature of an accession conference. Therefore all
agreements that are reached in the course of the negotiations are based on unanimous decisions of all
parties, which may already involve their national Parliaments in accordance with their constitutional
requirements. Once the accession Treaty is signed it shall be submitted for ratification by all contracting
parties in accordance with their national requirements. These national requirements include an assent by
national Parliaments of the Treaty agreed beforehand by the negotiators of the contracting parties.

The Commission also refers to the procedure foreseen in Article 49 of the Treaty on the European Union.
As a result the decision of the Council to sign the accession Treaty is based on a positive vote of the
European Parliament on the accession of each single country.

The Commission contributes to this process by providing the Member States with a considerable amount
of monitoring and assessment information, in particular through its Regular Reports on each individual
candidate country.

(2003/C 192 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2084/02

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Lengthy delays in the adoption of children from Andhra Pradesh (India)

Fifteen Spanish families (and others from the USA, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium) are
involved in the process of adopting children from the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, in which connection
Unicef has drawn up reports condemning the precarious physical and psychological conditions in which
children available for adoption find themselves.

Cooperation on the part of the Andhra Pradesh Welfare Department (which is responsible for adoptions) is
not yet forthcoming, even though Spanish and Indian law relating to international adoptions has been
complied with. In the meantime, India and its neighbour Pakistan have placed themselves on a war
footing. In these circumstances, could the EU make representations to the Indian Prime Minister (and,
where appropriate, to the Prime Minister of Andhra Pradesh) with a view to speeding up the adoption
process?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2002)

The Commission is aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member concerning current delays in
adoption of children in Andhra Pradesh.

In 2001, India faced a major adoption scandal in several states, namely Orissa, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu
and Andhra Pradesh. The scandal was most intense in Andhra Pradesh, and the State Government
conducted an uncompromising policy to stop adoption centres to continue the alleged children traffic in
India and internationally. The Centre Adoption Resource Agency (CARA), withdrew the licenses from all
the alleged centres transferring them to government centres. In order to conduct a thorough investigation,
and to be able to control the situation, the Andra Pradesh Government has, since 2001, put obstacles and
hindrance into adoption procedures. Since CARA, which is the body which gives the final No Objection