WRITTEN QUESTION E-3789/02 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council. Antonio Russo affair.
Date: 2003-01-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, Georgia, Italy, communications profession, homicide, judicial inquiry, jurisdiction

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/107

On 20 March 2000, a European directive consolidating the Directive of 18 December 1978 made it clear
that national provisions which required a specific language to be used in the labelling of foodstuffs,
without allowing for the possibility for another language to be used, were contrary to European law.

As a result of a ruling by the Court of Justice on 12 September 2000 on a case referred to it by the Lyons
Court of Appeal, the European Commission notified France that it had two months in which to comply
with this legislation.

Following this, the French Government issued Decree No 2002-1025 of 1 August 2002, which amended
Article R. 112-8 of the Code de la Consommation to the effect that although foodstuffs still had to be
labelled in French, they could also (new subparagraph 2) be labelled in one or more other languages.

Does the Council consider this amendment to be sufficient vis-à-vis the European legislation referred to
above?

In other words, does a Member State still have a legitimate right to require that foodstuffs sold within its
borders are labelled, as a minimum, in its national language?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Question put by the Honourable Member comes within the remit of the European Commission,
which,
is responsible for ensuring that Community
Directives, and therefore Directive 2000/13/EC referred to in this Question, are applied.

in accordance with Article 211 of

the Treaty,

The Council therefore suggests that the Honourable Member address this Question to the European
Commission.

(2003/C 222 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3789/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Antonio Russo affair

the murder of

Mr G.G. has provided a reconstruction of
the Italian journalist Antonio Russo,
correspondent of the Italian radio station ‘Radio Radicale’, which occurred on 16 October 2000 in Tbilisi,
Georgia (date and place probable but not certain). In his written statement, Mr G.G. asserts that:
‘The
ambush was organised and carried out by FSB staff, all of them from the Caucasian republics (CIS and
autonomous republics),
in collusion with a number of members of prominent mafia-type families of
Chechen, Georgian, Azeri and Armenian stock’. They carried out the killing at the instigation of ‘agents
provocateurs’ working for Russia. The Russian citizen Fedo, Sergijejevic Petov, who not only enjoys the
trust of Dr Arlacchi but has also, thanks to his protection, been able to establish a network of contacts in
order to engage in a flourishing money laundering trade with the proceeds of illicit activities conducted
mainly in the CIS, paid into Austrian and Hungarian, as well as Croatian and Greek, bank accounts, is not
totally unrelated to this decision. This statement will be forwarded as soon as possible to the Georgian and
Italian authorities currently investigating the murder of Antonio Russo. Moreover, in its reply to Question
P-2110/01 (1), the Council stated that ‘representatives of EU Member States in Tbilisi, as well as the
Commission Delegation there, maintain a constant watch on events’ connected to the death of Antonio
Russo.

What measures does the Council intend to take to check the reliability of Mr G.G.’s reconstruction of the
killing of Antonio Russo? What information does the Council have regarding investigations into the
Antonio Russo affair? What action has the Council taken since its reply of 21 October 2001 and what
further action does it intend to take, including measures in cooperation with the Georgian, French and
Italian authorities, to elucidate the circumstances in which Antonio Russo was murdered?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 109.

C 222 E/108

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

As stated in answer to the previous question on this subject, the Council is not in a position to comment
on, or enter into, allegations concerning a criminal case. The Council has not received any detailed
information concerning the progress of enquiries. The Council places its faith in the Italian, French and
Georgian authorities to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of Antonio Russo. Questions
concerning the investigation should be addressed to the relevant authorities.

(2003/C 222 E/127)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3793/02

by Dorette Corbey (PSE)
and Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Subject: Annual report on Europe’s nature and biodiversity

On 14 March 2002 the European Parliament (cid:1) with a majority of 370 votes in favour, 8 against and 14
abstentions (cid:1) approved the resolution on biodiversity (1). In point 13 Parliament asks for an annual report
on Europe’s nature and biodiversity. Information on the state of Europe’s biodiversity is still fragmented
and uncoordinated. An annual report would enable Parliament, Council and Commission to monitor the
state of Europe’s biodiversity and to develop timely measures if necessary and appropriate. An annual
report would also motivate and inspire those who make the efforts: progress would be visible (cid:1) and
regression would be met with new or additional protection measures. It would be a useful addition to the
evaluation of the effectiveness of existing protection directives and policies.

Is the Commission prepared to fulfil Parliament’s request and to take the initiative for an annual

1.
report on Europe’s nature and biodiversity?

2.
To draw up an annual report, a series of indicators and network of reporters are needed. Will the
Commission make use of the European Centre for Nature Conservation and build on the progress that was
made at this centre in coordinating and developing monitoring methods? How will the Commission
involve the European Environment Agency?

(1) European Parliament resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament on the biodiversity action plans in the areas of conservation of natural resources, agriculture, fisheries,
and development and economic cooperation (COM(2001) 162) (cid:1) C5-0467/2001 (cid:1) 2001/2189(COS)).

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Members that it agrees that information on the state of Europe’s
biodiversity is still fragmented and recognises the value of regular reporting in enabling the Parliament, the
Council and the Commission to monitor the state of Europe’s biodiversity and to develop timely measures
if appropriate.

While at present no annual report exists which comprehensively meets the aim of the Biodiversity
Resolution, point 13, a number of current reporting processes involving the Commission, Member States
and/or European agencies go some way towards meeting this aim. These include: general annual reports
(e.g. the Spring Report, Annual Survey on the Implementation and Enforcement of European Environ-
mental Legislation, and potentially the Annual Environment Policy Review); regular (but not annual)
reports on nature and biodiversity required under the Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans and under the
Birds and Habitats Directives (1); and various reports of the European Environment Agency (EEA).