WRITTEN QUESTION P-2657/02 by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission. Plane-spotters.
Date: 2002-09-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European citizenship, Greece, Netherlands, approximation of laws, espionage, legal process, leisure, national law, right to justice

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/9

The Commission points to the substantial financial contribution from the Community to help the work
directly involved in, or resulting from, dismantling,
in particular through the Kozloduy International
Decommissioning Support Fund (KIDSF), administered by the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD). In March the Bulgarian Parliament ratified a framework agreement with the EBRD
on the use of this Fund. The first projects have already been approved by the Assembly of Contributors, in
particular the construction of a unit for the dry storage of radioactive waste on site, which is now the
subject of an invitation to tender.

The Commission does not at present think that there is any real likelihood that Bulgaria might refuse to
honour its commitments regarding the closure of certain units of the Kozloduy power plant, in particular
units 1 and 2. The discussions concerning more specifically units 3 and 4 are being held as part of the
negotiations with the Member States on Chapter 14 (energy). According to the terms of the 1999
agreement between the Commission and Bulgaria (which the EU has included in the negotiations on
Chapter 14), Bulgaria has undertaken to decide in the course of this year on ceasing operation of those
two units. The EU considers that definitive shutdown must take place in 2006 at the latest. The Bulgarian
Government has recently announced that it proposes to close units 3 & 4 in 2006.

In July the Bulgarian Parliament adopted a new energy strategy which lays the foundations for the
introduction of market mechanisms and the reshaping of the industry,
including the improvement of
Bulgaria’s energy output. Output is clearly identified in this strategy as one of the priorities for the industry
and Bulgaria is at present working out a number of scenarios for improving it. A number of texts have
been adopted this year, and they already lay down the rules for the operation of the market, in particular
to facilitate the transition from a price formation mechanism in which energy prices have hitherto been
laid down by the administration to a system based on regulation. The regulator (the Science and
Engineering Research Council) has therefore taken the responsibility of developing and implementing
procedures for setting prices and tariffs for electricity, gas and urban heating.

(2004/C 11 E/011)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2657/02

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Subject: Plane-spotters

On 26 April 2002 two nationals of the Netherlands were sentenced by a Greek court in Kalamata to three-
years’ imprisonment for practising their hobby, plane-spotting. The plane-spotters were taking part, with
the specific consent of the Greek aviation authorities, in an organised trip to Greece to record the numbers
of the military aeroplanes they spotted on and near various military airbases. Such numbers are available
from several public sources,
including the Internet. Nevertheless, the Greek court regarded the plane-
spotters’ actions as spying, which is an offence under Greek law.

The interpretation of plane-spotting by the judicial authorities differs in the Member States concerned.
What is regarded as a hobby in the Netherlands, is punishable by three years’ imprisonment in Greece. It is
desirable that there should be a clear statement concerning plane spotting vis-à-vis spying, not least for the
purposes of European legislation, such as the harmonisation of punishments and the European arrest
warrant.

Is the European Commission aware of the case described above?

Is the Commission prepared to make a clear statement concerning the difference between plane spotting
and spying?

C 11 E/10

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2002)

The Commission is fully aware of this case which received considerable publicity. The Commission has no
authority to verify whether proceedings in any Member State violated the right to a fair trial, there is no
legal basis for an action of this sort and no mechanism exists with which to do so. The European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) lays down the standards required for a fair trial. These provisions
are set out in Articles 5 (Right to liberty and security) and 6 (Right to a fair trial) and are developed in the
case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Any complaints that proceedings violated the right to a
fair trial have to be made to that court, after exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Commission
understands that the plane-spotter tourists have lodged an appeal against their convictions and sentences in
the Greek Court of Criminal Appeals. If the appeal is unsuccessful, an application can then be made to the
European Court of Human Rights.

The Commission is not in a position to make a statement about plane-spotting since it has no competence
to do so.

(2004/C 11 E/012)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2658/02

by José Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Subject: Opening of new delegations as part of the Commission’s External Service

In its resolution A5-0199/2001 (1) on the Commission Communication concerning the development of the
External Service (2) the European Parliament recognised the need to open new Commission delegations and
offices in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Taiwan and Paraguay, and recalled the Commission’s 1998 list of
priorities for the opening of new delegations (3), which also included countries such as Iran, Singapore,
Ecuador and Switzerland, for various political reasons or because of substantial economic interests.

The European Parliament provided the necessary budgetary support for this purpose. Since then, the
Commission has opened new delegations in Paraguay, Nepal and Cambodia.

What steps has the Commission taken to open new delegations in the countries suggested by the European
Parliament?

Does the Commission have a timetable for the opening of delegations in these countries and others, as
part of the reform of the External Service?

When are the new delegations in Saudi Arabia, Taiwan,
scheduled to open?

Iran, Singapore, Ecuador and Switzerland

(1) OJ C 53 E, 28.2.2002, p. 390.
(2) COM(2000) 456 of 14 June 2001.
(3) Document SEC(1998) 1261.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Decisions on opening new Delegations inevitably involve hard choices on priorities. The Commission has
long been aware of the great political and economic importance to the Union of Saudi Arabia and indeed,
the other Gulf Co-operation Council States. In 1998 as correctly pointed out by the Honourable Member,
it made the opening of a Delegation in Riyadh one of the priorities in the development of its External
Service. Unforeseen events, such as the Balkan crisis and the ever tighter financial climate, however, made
it impossible to meet the 1998 targets: of the six Delegations, two Offices and a representation which had
been planned. At that time only two Delegations were opened, both in the Balkans.