WRITTEN QUESTION E-3422/02 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU economic aid for countries infringing human rights.
Date: 2002-12-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU national, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, aid policy, confiscation of property, financial aid, human rights, suspension of aid

C 11 E/56

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2003)

The Union provides assistance to Albania in the framework of the Council Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000
of 5 December 2000 (1). The medium-term outlook for assistance is set by the Country Strategy Paper
2002-2006 which includes the Multi-annual Indicative Programme identifying the priority sectors for
Union assistance for the period between 2002-2004. The present financial envelope for this period is
EUR 143,9 million. The areas of foremost importance are justice and home affairs, administrative capacity
building, economic and social development, environment, natural resources and democratic stabilisation.
The agreed Country Strategy Paper does not have culture as a priority for co-operation, hence no projects
in this field are funded by the Commission through the CARDS programme.

All these priority areas are assisting Albania in improving its administrative structures, working capacities
and methodologies for being able to move gradually ahead in its Stabilisation and Association process.

In addition to the national allocations, CARDS regional programme established for the period between
2002-2004, assists the whole region in the areas of
integrated border management, democratic
stabilisation, institution building and regional infrastructure with EUR 80 million from which also Albania
benefits.

In the framework of Interreg IIIA, cross-border co-operation between Greece and Albania, some actions are
planned to support cultural and artistic events benefiting the southern regions of Albania. The Albanian
side contributes in kind to these activities.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000 of 5 December 2000 on assistance for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, repealing Regulation
(EC) No 1628/96 and amending Regulations (EEC) No 3906/89 and (EEC) No 1360/90 and Decisions 97/256/EC
and 1999/311/EC, OJ L 306, 7.12.2000.

(2004/C 11 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3422/02

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 December 2002)

Subject: EU economic aid for countries infringing human rights

I have repeatedly drawn the Commission’s attention to the illegal confiscation of property belonging to
Community citizens (mainly of Italian, Dutch and Greek nationality) living in Ethiopia under the Mengistu
Communist Regime which has since collapsed. It is no secret that the present government of Ethiopia is
refusing to remedy matters, while the EU, far from taking any action whatever, is continuing to provide
unconditional economic aid for this country.

The United States on the other hand has not hesitated to call into force the pre-war ‘Hall Rule’ which
authorises President of the United States to suspend immediately economic aid to countries harming the
interests of American citizens. The Ethiopian Government has complied with its demands and
compensated American citizens whose property had been illegally confiscated by the Mengistu regime
something which (cid:1) I repeat (cid:1) the European Union has failed to achieve for its own citizens.

Finally, the international press has indicated that the totalitarian regime of Zimbabwe under Robert
Mugabe announced that the Prime Minister Tony Blair and the members of his government would be
banned from entering the country since the United Kingdom was imposing visa requirements on all
Zimbabwean citizens wishing to visit the United Kingdom. It is moreover a known fact that the United
Kingdom has repeatedly castigated the communist regime of that country for its repressive policies and for

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/57

the confiscation of property belonging to Community citizens. It should be noted that the EU has criticised
the Zimbabwean regime for its use of humanitarian aid which is reaching only Mr Mugabe’s political allies
and not the million of starving inhabitants of the country.

Why has the EU condemned Zimbabwe while on the other hand approving or at least tolerating in
practice similar behaviour on the part of Ethiopia? What view does the Commission take of the stance
adopted by the British Prime Minister? What view does it take of the action taken by the United States
administration which has proved that it is able to defend effectively the interests of American citizens?
Why does the EU not decide on the immediate suspension of aid to countries which indulge in illegal
practices and the unfair treatment of Community citizens?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

The Commission’s position on the return of property confiscated from European citizens under the
Mengistu régime in Ethiopia continues to be as stated in the answer to written question by the Honourable
Member on the same subject of 2001 (E-879/01 (1)). Legally, the Commission has no mandate to represent
Community citizens’ cases vis-à-vis the Ethiopian authorities, and claims for compensation can only be
pursued through the national courts.

However, respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law underpin the Cotonou
Partnership Agreement, and constitute its essential elements. Both the Commission and its Member States,
through dialogue with the Government of Ethiopia, as well as through development aid in support of good
governance, strive to ensure that those essential elements are respected and that democratic cultures are
developed.

Aid is only suspended in such cases where, despite political dialogue, a country is considered to be in clear
breach of its commitments on human rights, democracy or the rule of law, and where it has not
demonstrated any readiness to remedy the situation. This was the case for Zimbabwe: it is not the case for
Ethiopia. The Union remains vigilant in Ethiopia, however, and continues to express its concerns to
Government on issues relating to human rights and democracy in the context of its ongoing political
dialogue.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001.

(2004/C 11 E/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3512/02

by Herman Vermeer (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Problem of mutual recognition in the port of Antwerp involving a visa issued by a Schengen state

As of 1 October 2002 the Vision list has been distributed in the port of Antwerp. The nationalities
included on the Vision list must register using a so-called STVZ form and may not travel on to another
Schengen Member State. They may leave Belgium in order to return to their country of origin or they may
be deported to non-Schengen countries such as the United Kingdom or Switzerland. The rule also applies
in reverse. Seamen holding one of the nationalities on the Vision list and seeking to enter Belgium via
Amsterdam (Schiphol) Frankfurt or Paris are being turned away at the Belgian border, preventing them
from checking whether their ship is docked in a Belgian port. They are thus being forced to enter Belgium
either directly or via a non-Schengen country, such as Switzerland or the United Kingdom. The result of
this requirement to register is that the Belgian border police no longer recognises a visa issued by a
Schengen partner. To my mind, this runs counter to the agreements concluded between and by the
Schengen countries.