WRITTEN QUESTION E-0303/03 by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Malta's accession to the EU.
Date: 2003-02-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Malta, accession to the European Union, deprivation of rights, organisation of elections, political morality, right to vote

C 88 E/322

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

every day enforcement of this Directive is, however, a matter for the Member States who are best placed to
determine how this should be achieved in their country. Unfortunately, the Commission is not able to
directly intervene on individual complaints addressed by citizens to Member States. The examination of the
measures communicated by the Spanish Government for misleading and comparative advertising does not
allow the Commission to conclude that there is an infringement to Community law.

To address the grievances of airline passengers, the Commission on 7 June 2002 issued a consultation
paper on airlines’ contracts with passengers. This concerned, among other things, the information the
passenger should receive before buying an airline ticket. The consultation yielded numerous contributions
from stakeholders and the Commission is currently assessing if and what action should follow to tackle
what has been identified as unsatisfactory for the airline passengers.

In relation to the allegation of anti-competitive practices it is true that undertakings which hold a
dominant position on the relevant market could, under certain circumstances, abuse that dominant
position within the meaning of Article 82 of the EC Treaty. However, in the absence of further details on
the alleged abuse by the Spanish airline companies, it is not possible to determine whether the EC Treaty
has been violated.

(1) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.

(2004/C 88 E/0327)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0303/03

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Malta’s accession to the EU

Would the Commission please comment on reports that 900 mentally-competent senior citizens have been
crossed off the electoral register in Malta and will not be allowed to vote in the forthcoming referendum
on Malta’s accession to the EU?

Would the Commission further comment on reports that the ‘Yes’ National Party have engaged in
improper and undemocratic practices to further their campaign and impede the ‘No’ campaign (cid:1) such as
biasing the civil service, restricting the number of mass meetings that the ‘No’ Labour Party can hold and
comparing ‘No’ supporters with the Nazis?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

The Honourable Member raises questions concerning important democratic rights. Article 6(1) of the
Treaty on the European Union provides that the Union is founded on principles of democracy and respect
for human rights and fundamental freedoms. However, the Union does not have a general competence as
regards the fundamental rights, but it can intervene only in the event of violation of the fundamental rights
in the field of the application of the Union legislation.

The electoral issues, including criteria for the right to vote in national referenda belong to the powers of
the Member States. There is no Union legislation on the subject. In 1993, the Member States agreed about
the so called Copenhagen criteria for accession. According to these criteria, membership requires that the
Candidate Country has achieved among others ‘stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of
law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities’. The questions of the Honourable Member
concerning Malta can be considered from this point of view.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/323

The General Elections Act of Malta foresees that any decision to transfer, correct or cancel voters can only
be taken by an Electoral Commission, which includes appointees of both political parties. In addition, in
the case of a challenge of a citizen’s right of vote on the ground on mental
infirmity, the Electoral
Commission can take a decision to cancel a registration only if the appointed Medical Board has previously
decided by unanimous vote that the voter is of unsound mind. This Medical Board is composed of a
medical doctor appointed as chairperson and a medical doctor appointed by each of the political parties.
This legal procedure guarantees that no abusive cancellation of a citizen from the voters’ register takes
place.

Therefore, while there have been challenges by both parties of some citizens’ right of vote, on the ground
of mental
infirmity, a cancellation of a registration can only be done following legally established
procedures. The Commission is not aware that this has resulted in the cancellation of hundreds of
registrations of these citizens. The Commission also noted that the Nationalist Party has withdrawn its
challenges of some citizens’ right of vote on the ground of mental infirmity, and presented apologies to
those who had been unduly challenged.

The Commission believes that the political campaign for the accession referendum in Malta has taken place
until now in conformity with basic democratic rules. There has been, to its knowledge, no limitation to the
right of the Labour Party and the ‘No side’ to hold meetings. The Commission is not aware of any attempt
‘to bias the civil service’.

The Commission wishes, however, to stress that the issue of accession to the Union is a subject of
historical importance for Malta and which rises a lot of passion in a country that applied for membership
already in 1990.

(2004/C 88 E/0328)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0370/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2003)

Subject: Closure of the Clarks factory in Portugal (cid:1) Community aid (cid:1) Relocation

The Portuguese media have extensively reported the recent announcement of the forthcoming closure of a
shoe factory belonging to the British multinational Clarks in Castelo de Paiva, in the north of the country.
As a result of this unexpected closure, some 600 workers will be made redundant and this will have a
particularly devastating impact on the living conditions of families and workers resident in the area, which
is in fact situated, for the purposes of the structural funds, in an Objective 1 region.

To set up the plant in 1988 and begin production in Castelo de Paiva, the company received considerable
support from national and Community funds and was scheduled to continue production at least until
2007.

It has frequently been reported that Clarks is relocating the factory from Portugal to Romania and is now
hoping that, by opening the new plant in Romania, it will become eligible for further Community funding
as part of the aid being made available for pre-accession and the future integration of this Eastern
European country.

Does the Commission have duly substantiated information regarding Clarks’
intention to relocate its
factory from Portugal to Romania? Can the Commission guarantee that, as direct or indirect Community
funding was granted for the Portuguese factory, no further direct or indirect funding will be granted to the
Clarks group for the new factory in Romania (which would be equivalent to an indirect ‘premium’ for the
closure of the Portuguese factory)?