WRITTEN QUESTION E-2083/02 by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Council. Lengthy delays in the adoption of children from Andhra Pradesh (India).
Date: 2002-07-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, India, international adoption

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/129

areas, Community finance was allocated only to the towns and cities in the top ten places; the Italian
authorities have submitted the relevant programmes to the Commission in accordance with Article 19 of
the Communication.

(1) OJ C 141, 19.5.2000.

(2003/C 52 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2083/02

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Council

(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?

Reply

(11 November 2002)

The Council does not consider it appropriate to interfere with the ongoing adoption process.

(2003/C 52 E/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2089/02

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Compatibility of the Benes Decrees, the 1946 Amnesty Law and the 1992 Restitution Law with

EU law

On 2 June 2002, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) published an interview with Commissioner
Verheugen concerning the compatibility of the Benes decrees with EU law. In reply to the question
whether the 1946 law granting amnesty still had legal effect to this day, Mr Verheugen answered that it
was not a question of immunity from prosecution for crimes committed in connection with driving out
the Germans. The intention was to give resistance fighters legal protection. Acts committed on the basis of
dishonourable motives did not fall within that law. Mr Verheugen went on to say that in so far as these
laws still had legal effect, they would be brought into line with EU law by means of individual measures
and other steps in the Czech Republic.

In an article on 18 August 1995, the FAZ reported the case of a Czech citizen who had shot dead and
buried 14 people in Schwarzbach on 24 May 1945. On 16 March 1992, the Ceské Budejovice district
court ruled that the perpetrator of this crime was not subject to prosecution.

On 11 June 2002,
Reifferscheid the restitution of his property (FAZ, 14 June 2002).

the Czech Interior Minister, citing Decree No 33/1945, refused Count Salm-

In the Commission’s view, is the current use of the 1946 amnesty law by Czech case law contrary to the
principles laid down in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union?