WRITTEN QUESTION E-0191/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council. The increasing extent to which US criteria are being put forward for acceptance or refusal of new Member States by the EU.
Date: 2003-01-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, International Criminal Tribunal, United States, Yugoslavia, accession to the European Union, diplomatic relations, imperialism, war crime

C 280 E/40

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

The Commission has no direct role in the supervision of individual

insurance undertakings in
3.
Member States.
In fact, neither the EC Treaty nor Community insurance directives confer specific
supervisory powers upon the Commission, nor does the Commission authorise and supervise undertakings
wishing to write insurance business.

It falls under the responsibility of each Member State to organise and effect this national supervisory
responsibility (see e.g. Article 8 of the so called ‘Third Life Insurance Directive’, i.e. Council Directive 92/
96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the co-ordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EC and 90/619/EEC (2) and Articles 16,
laws,
17, 18 and 23 of Council Directive 79/267/EEC of 5 March 1979 on the co-ordination of
regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of direct life
assurance (3)).

Where an aggrieved party considers that national supervisory authorities have not properly respected the
requirements of the relevant Community Directives, redress may be sought by application to national
courts. In fact, national courts are competent to analyse whether a national supervisory authority, when
carrying on its supervisory functions, has complied with the supervisory law. They can also take
appropriate measures in order to ensure the respect of the law. Furthermore, in such cases it is for the
internal legal order of each Member State to designate the competent courts and lay down the detailed
procedural rules for legal proceedings intended fully to safeguard the rights which individuals may derive
from Community law (4). In these conditions, the time limit for bringing legal claims for compensation is
determined by national law.

(1) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002.
(2) OJ L 360, 9.12.1992.
(3) OJ L 63, 13.3.1979.
(4) See Judgement of the Court of 19 November 1991, Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v Italian

Republic, Joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, European Court reports 1991 page I-5357.

(2003/C 280 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0191/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(31 January 2003)

Subject: The increasing extent to which US criteria are being put forward for acceptance or refusal of new

Member States by the EU

1.
Is the Council still of the view that, together with Slovenia, other countries of the Western Balkans
created from the former Yugoslav Federation should be offered the opportunity, if they wish, to become
Member States of the EU on the basis of the ‘Copenhagen criteria’ applied to all the candidate countries?

2.
Can the Council confirm that the US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, Pierre-Richard
Prosper, currently on a visit to the Western Balkan states, is demanding that Bosnia-Hercegovina and
Serbia hand over the former President and former commander of the army of the Bosnian Serb Republic
to the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague?

3.
Is the Council familiar with reports suggesting that the states referred to in question 2 are being
threatened by the Ambassador-at-Large not only with a reduction in US financial assistance and opposition
to their becoming members of international organisations of which the USA itself is a member, if they fail
to hand over the persons concerned promptly, but also with being refused membership of the EU?

Does the Council agree that punishing war criminals, however desirable this may be, is not a special

4.
precondition that may be imposed by a country outside the EU for accession to the EU?

5.
Has the Council noted that the USA has already interfered in the issue of the accession of new
Member States to the EU by pressing, contrary to the line being pursued, for Turkey to be swiftly accepted
without conditions?

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/41

6. What gives the USA the authority to create the impression that it has a right of decision in relation
to the accession of new Member States to the EU?

7.
Does the Council intend to inform the USA that decisions on accepting new Member States lie
exclusively, jointly, with the EU itself, its Member States and the candidate countries and are on no account
a matter for non-European powers?

Source: Netherlands edition of the daily newspaper ‘Metro’ of 20 January 2003

Reply

(21 July 2003)

The countries of

1.
the Western Balkans had their European prospects (‘potential candidates for
membership’) confirmed at the Zagreb Summit in November 2000, based on the conclusions of the
European Council meeting at Feira on 19 and 20 June 2000. The European Council meeting in
the
Copenhagen on 12/13 December 2002 recently recalled the membership criteria defined at
Copenhagen European Council meeting in June 1993 and reaffirmed the European prospects of the
countries of the Western Balkans.

2.
The European Union attaches very great importance to the handing over of Radovan Karadjic, Ratko
Mladic and General Gotovina to the ICTY. As regards the US position, the Honourable Member should
address his request directly to the competent authorities.

3.
The Council is aware that the US Congress included a special clause in its law on foreign assistance
for 2003, whereby it has practically frozen until 15 June its aid for Serbia, amounting to USD 110 million.
The suspension will be lifted if Secretary of State Colin Powell informs Congress that Serbia has complied
with the conditions for cooperation with the ICTY.

4.
The Council is not aware of any threats by Ambassador Prosper regarding these countries’ eventual
membership of the EU, but is informed that the United States attaches great importance to the US and the
EU sending the same message on full cooperation with the ICTY.

The Council reiterates that all countries and parties in the Western Balkans region must cooperate fully
with the ICTY. Full cooperation with the ICTY is essential for further movement towards the EU.

Finally, the Council would like to stress to the Honourable Member that applications for membership of
the European Union are dealt with solely in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 49 of the
Treaty on European Union, which upholds the principle of autonomy of decision making by the European
Union

(2003/C 280 E/042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0220/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Council

(3 February 2003)

Subject: Drug-related escalation of violence in Bolivia

The situation in Bolivia vis-à-vis the demonstrations of indigenous groups that advocate the use of
traditional produce such as coca leaf (cid:1) currently strictly regulated by the Bolivian Government (cid:1) should
become of particular concern to the international community. In fact, over the last few days in Bolivia
there has been a series of clashes between the police and army and the protesters, mainly farmers, who
were demonstrating against the eradication of their traditional crop. According to Bolivian media outlets
the situation is characterised by an escalation of violence that has led to at least 17 deaths, dozens
wounded and hundreds arrested.

Is the Council aware of the nature of such an escalation in the confrontation between the Government and
indigenous groups on the eradication of coca, and what measures is the Council enforcing or does it
intend to enforce in its support to the Bolivian authorities in their crop eradication activities?