WRITTEN QUESTION E-2162/02 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU Special Representative in Bosnia.
Date: 2002-07-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bosnia and Herzegovina, EU financing, common foreign and security policy, democratisation, diplomatic representation, political morality, the EU's international role

C 242 E/8

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

The area itself is in danger of being divided into two, which would appear to contravene the Ramsar
Convention. Moreover, such European directives as the Habitats Directive and Wild Birds Directive are not
being complied with. The area in question has been nominated for inclusion in the Natura 2000 Network.

Virtually nothing is known about the possible adverse impact of the continuous electromagnetic radiation
on people or birds.

Is the Commission aware of the building of this installation, which is de facto taking place on British
territory?

Is the Commission aware that no environmental impact assessment has been carried out and that neither
the public nor NGOs have had the opportunity to state their views?

What view does the Commission take of the fact that British authorities are taking action in the territory
of Cyprus which will have a drastic impact on a quite unique natural area,
in disregard of European
directives?

What action will the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 August 2002)

The Commission is aware of reports concerning the construction of a new antenna in the Sovereign Base
Area (SBA) of Akrotiri.

It should be recalled that according to Article 299(6)(b) of the EC Treaty, this Treaty does not apply to the
United Kingdom’s SBAs in Cyprus. Therefore, Community law does not apply in these territories.

As regards any possible impact of the antenna on the people or territory of the Republic of Cyprus, this
would be primarily a bilateral issue to be dealt with between the Cypriot and SBA authorities.

The Commission does not have competence to take action in this matter.

(2003/C 242 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2162/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: EU Special Representative in Bosnia

Can the Commission say how much Lord Ashdown is paid in his capacity as EU Special Representative in
Bosnia? What financing is provided by the EU for his office?

With reference to the sacking and barring from future public office by Lord Ashdown of
the
democratically-elected Deputy Prime Minister of the Muslim-Croat Federation, Nikola Grabovac, can it
say whether democratic standards will really be fostered in the new country when an unelected foreigner
‘This is
wields such arbitrary power in this manner? To quote the office of the Special Representative:
about political responsibility. If Bosnia is to become part of Europe, then it needs to adopt these sorts of
European standards’. Is Lord Ashdown teaching Bosnians a ‘European standard’ of public behaviour? If so,
why has the Commission never publicly condemned any of the instances of massive fraud revealed in
political parties in the EU? If not, will the Commission be reprimanding Lord Ashdown for his dictatorial
behaviour, which is unacceptable from a representative of democratic European countries?

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/9

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Lord Ashdown was appointed Union Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina (‘double-hatted’)
under a Council Joint Action (2002/211/CFSP) of 11 March 2002. He receives no Union remuneration in
his capacity as Union Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). However, financing is
provided for the operating costs of the Office of the High Representative under Council Regulation (EC)
No 1080/2000 of 22 May 2000. In 2002 this financing is set at EUR 13 307 million.

Lord Ashdown dismissed Nikola Grabovac because, in his judgement, the latter had failed to supervise
actively his ministry and to perform effectively the function of the Federation Minister of Finance.
Mr Grabovac also ‘failed to show the required leadership by taking political responsibility’ for the loss of
1,7 million KM from the public purse. The powers of the High Representative do not derive from
democratic election; but they are not arbitrary. They are conferred on him by annex 10 of the Dayton
Peace Agreement and by the December 1997 Bonn Peace Implementation Council. In exercising his ‘Bonn
powers’ the aim of the High Representative is to promote implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement
and a self-sustaining peace in Bosnia in which international supervision is,
in due course, no longer
necessary. The Union’s efforts in BiH are designed to help the country make progress in the Stabilisation
and Association process, and to realise its aspirations as a potential candidate for Union membership to
become a member of the Union one day. But like other potential candidates, BiH must show that is
willing, over time, to take on the obligations that would come with eventual Union membership.

The Commission strongly supports Lord Ashdown in his work as High Representative, and his decision in
this case.

(2003/C 242 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2169/02

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Enlargement

The Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe (UNICE) recently drew attention to the
slow working of the administration in certain candidate countries. Some cases of corruption have also
arisen among these countries.

This situation considerably hinders the entry and establishment of firms from European Union countries.

What measures is the Directorate-General for Enlargement planning to take to mitigate this situation?

Has a quantitative assessment been made of the economic damage which might result from these
‘technical’ barriers?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2002)

As can be seen from the Commission’s Regular Report on the progress towards accession in the candidate
countries, the problems mentioned by the Honourable Member are known to the Commission. The
information provided by UNICE, as by other independent sources, are very useful and are greatly
appreciated.

The problems of administrative weakness have been addressed by the Commission since the beginning of
its co-operation with the candidate countries. Many PHARE projects in all candidate countries aim at
strengthening the capacity of public administration. In fact, today it is the core objective of PHARE. This
has included specific programmes to combat corruption. These efforts continue under the PHARE