WRITTEN QUESTION E-2659/02 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission. Cooperation with non-cooperating countries or areas.
Date: 2002-09-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Ukraine, accession negotiations, cooperation policy, money laundering

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/37

The Commission recalls that a nationality of Member States is entirely a matter for the Member States
concerned, as the Declaration on nationality of a Member State appended to the Treaty of Maastricht
confirms (4). It is, therefore, for each Member State, having due regard to the Community law, to lay down
the conditions for acquisition and loss of nationality (5). It follows that Greece lays down the conditions for
acquiring and losing the Greek nationality and the Greek authorities control the correct enforcement of
those conditions. This concerns also the matter of naturalisations referred to by the Honourable Member.

the national

Because the correct enforcement of
legislation concerning the acquisition and loss of
nationality is under the responsibility of the Member States, they do not report about these issues to the
Commission. For this reason, the Commission has not requested neither received specific information from
the Greek authorities relating to naturalisations. Regarding data relating to migration and asylum supplied
by national authorities to the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) as part of annual
collection of statistical data, the Commission refers to its previous replies.

(1) OJ C 106 E, 4.7.2002.
(2) Written reply, 13.2.2001.
(3) Written reply, 2.10.2001.
(4) Declaration no 2 on nationality of a Member State (cid:1) OJ C 191, 29.7.1992.
(5) See judgement of the European Court of Justice in case C-369/90 Micheletti of 7.7.1992, ECR 1992, p. I-4239.

(2003/C 155 E/042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2659/02

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(20 September 2002)

Subject: Cooperation with non-cooperating countries or areas

On 21 June 2002, the FATF (Financial Action Task Force) published an updated list of countries or areas
designated as ‘non-cooperating jurisdictions’. The list comprises the Cook Islands, Dominica, Egypt,
Grenada, Guatemala, Indonesia, the Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Nauru, Nigeria, Niue, the Philippines,
Russia, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Ukraine.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What relations does the EU maintain with these countries?

2. What measures to combat money laundering is the Commission adopting in the context of these

relations?

3. Are there any special measures in connection with the accession negotiations with Ukraine?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2002)

1. and 2.
E-3497/01 (1) by Mr Turco.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question

3.
It is important to note that there are no accession negotiations taking place with Ukraine in the
context of Enlargement. Relations with Ukraine are conducted within the framework of the Partnership
and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, and Ukraine
(PCA) (2). Within this framework Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)-issues have been singled out as a priority
by both Ukraine and the Union. Consequently, when the Union Action Plan on Justice and Home Affairs

C 155 E/38

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

with Ukraine was agreed there were specific elements included on money laundering. Ukraine’s efforts
against money laundering will be supported by the Union in order for Ukraine to meet the standards of
the Council of Europe 1990 Convention on money laundering, the FATF recommendations and the
standards
the TACIS Assistance Programme the
strengthening of that country’s anti-money laundering system constitutes a priority.

set by the Egmont Group. Furthermore, under

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 6.
(2) OJ L 49, 19.2.1998.

(2003/C 155 E/043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2660/02

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Council

(23 September 2002)

Subject: Maajid Nawaz, Ian Malcolm Nisbett and Reza Pankhurst held captive in Egypt

Maajid Nawaz, Ian Malcolm Nisbett and Reza Pankhurst are three young British Muslim men who have
been detained in Egypt for five months. There have been concerns raised about their treatment, including
allegations of torture and breaches of the Geneva Convention. The British Government has issued a formal
complaint to the Egyptian Government concerning their treatment.

What action is the Council taking to support the UK Government in this case and end the abuses of these
men’s human rights?

Reply

(20 February 2003)

The British Government did not request the Council’s assistance on this matter. Should such a request be
made, it will be examined in a manner that takes due account of the spirit of cooperation, consular and
otherwise, between the Member States in respect of EU citizens.

The human rights situation in Egypt is in general closely monitored by the Council. An Association
Agreement making respect for human rights an essential element of Egyptian and EU internal and external
policy was signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2001. It also establishes a regular political dialogue which
will enable cooperation between the EU and the Egyptian authorities to be further strengthened, notably in
the field of human rights. However, that Agreement must be ratified by all the EU Member States before it
can enter into force. This has not taken place so far.

(2003/C 155 E/044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2664/02

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Subject: Neutral effect of competition law on the live broadcasting rights to sports events

In his reply given on behalf of the Commission and dated 31 July 2002 to my Written Question E-1912/
02 (1), Commissioner Monti said that the Commission wished to ensure that live broadcasting rights to
sports events were ‘not sold in a way that harms competition on media markets and which, as a
consequence, harms viewers’. In the application of competition law, ‘the Commission does not give any
preferential treatment of the market for pay-TV over the market for free-TV’. This law of the jungle
approach clearly favours pay-TV channels which have more financial clout when it comes to acquiring
broadcasting rights, and football provides us with the best example of this situation.