WRITTEN QUESTION E-2292/02 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission. Rule of law in Austria.
Date: 2002-07-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, European Court of Human Rights, extradition, right to justice, rights of the defence

C 155 E/8

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

Also relevant in this context is the European Refugee Fund (ERF) (1). The Fund of EUR 216 million was
established by Council Decision 2000/596/EC to promote solidarity between Member States in matters of
asylum, by supporting and encouraging the efforts made by the Member States in receiving and bearing
the financial consequences of accepting refugees and displaced persons. The Fund, in its present form, runs
from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2004.

Resources are distributed in proportion to the burden of expenditure in each Member State resulting from
receiving refugees and displaced persons. From 2000-2002, Greece’s allocation from the European Refugee
Fund has amounted to EUR 1 816 711,58 or 1,8 % of the Fund.

(1) 2000/596/EC: Council Decision of 28 September 2000 establishing a European Refugee Fund (cid:1) OJ L 252,

6.10.2000.

(2003/C 155 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2292/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Rule of law in Austria

Is the Commission aware of the case of Mr Shalom Weiss, a US citizen convicted of fraud in Miami in
1999 and sentenced to 845 years in prison, who had sought refuge from this inhumane sentence in
Austria?

Is the Commission aware that the Austrian Minister of Justice handed over Mr Weiss into American
custody before Mr Weiss’s appeal against deportation had completed the appropriate procedures and
despite an injunction from the Administrative Court forbidding his extradition?

Is the Commission aware that the European Court of Human Rights had indicated that interim measures
should be adopted pursuant to Rule 39 of its Rules of Procedure, and asked Austria to ensure that
Mr Weiss was not extradited pending its examination of the case?

Is the Commission aware that the United Nations Human Rights Committee had also issued interim
measures asking Austria not to deport Mr Weiss while it examined the human rights issues under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?

Does the Commission consider such conduct
to the
principles of liberty, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law as set out in
Article 6 of the EU Treaty?

to be compatible with Austria’s commitment

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

The Commission does not have any information as regards the particularities of the case of Mr Shalom
Weiss other than that given in the written question itself.

The Commission has to underline that currently, extradition relations between Member States and third
countries are not subject to any Union legal instrument. From this point of view, Member States are free to
act in this field as they deem appropriate.

The Honourable Member asked the Commission to analyse the question as regards Article 6 of the Treaty
on European Union.

The Commission would like to stress that this article is addressed to the European Union institutions and
to the Member States when they implement Union law.

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/9

Being so, the Commission considers that it is not appropriate in the particular case raised by the
Honourable Member, which does not fall under Union law, to voice an opinion on the compatibility of an
action taken by Austria with the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, or any other international legal instrument to which Austria is party.
As the Honourable Member is aware, the European Court of Human Rights is the competent institution to
deal with alleged violations of the European Convention.

(2003/C 155 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2303/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Giant merger between the two largest energy undertakings in Germany carried out with a view to

conquering more easily the energy market in other EU Member States

1.
Is the Commission aware that, in Germany, Ruhrgas AG distributes 58 % of all natural gas in the
country, through its ownership of a pipeline network and imports, and that Eon AG supplies almost one-
third of the country’s electricity, with the result that they hold a seriously dominant position in the two
major sectors of the German energy market?

2.
Has the Commission been informed that a further concentration of control of German energy
supplies, with Ruhrgas AG being taken over by Eon AG, was rejected in spring by the German equivalent
of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (Kartellamt) but that it may now go ahead because that
decision was declared invalid by means of a Decree published on 5 July 2002 by Dr Alfred Tacke, State
Secretary for Economic Affairs, on behalf of the German Government?

3.
Can the Commission confirm that, in May, the German Monopolies Commission also found the
merger inadmissible unless a number of shares in other undertakings, such as VNG in Leipzig, were sold, a
sale which the German Government is now requiring of the undertakings to be merged?

4.
Is this approval of the merger, despite fears of a misuse of power and domestic price increases,
largely based on efforts by the German Government to create a strong German concern which, thanks to
the EU’s liberalisation of the market, may acquire a significant market share in other EU Member States?

Does the Commission take the view that this Decree might set a precedent? Might it act as an

5.
incentive for the creation of more of these giant mergers at national level?

Does this procedure fit in with the Commission’s policy on mergers and the possible creation of
6.
monopolies? Does this merger decision provide the Commission with an opportunity to intervene, partly
on the grounds of the cross-border impact on other Member States? Will the Commission seize that
opportunity?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2002)

The Commission is aware of the findings of the prohibition decisions adopted by the German Federal

1.
Cartel Office in January and February 2002.

2.
The Commission has been informed that on 5 July 2002 the German Federal Minister of Economics
and Technology granted ministerial approval for the E.ON/Ruhrgas merger based on § 42 of the German
Cartel Law. The decision was adopted by Dr Alfred Tacke, State Secretary for Economic Affairs. It overrules
the said prohibition decisions and a negative recommendation by the German Monopoly Commission.