WRITTEN QUESTION P-0439/03 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) draft proposal for an Independent Recourse Mechanism.
Date: 2003-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EBRD, appeals by private individuals, project management

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/17

The Commission remains very concerned about the level of deficiencies in the compliance by Greece with
Community Animal Welfare Legislation, and notably on inadequate enforcement of the rules. It will not
fail to take such other action as is necessary to secure better observance of Community law in this domain
including in particular use of the infringement procedure under article 226 of the EC Treaty.

(2004/C 78 E/0017)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0439/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) draft proposal for an Independent

Recourse Mechanism

The G7 laid down in 2002 in Genoa that multilateral financial institutions should set up an independent
compliance mechanism. In response, the EBRD recently issued a proposal for such a mechanism. In
Europe, to date, the proposal has attracted little attention.

As long ago as 1993, the Washington-based World Bank set up a comparable body by establishing the
Inspection Panel. The panel was set up to operate as a public forum for individuals to submit complaints
to the Bank whenever they believe that they are being harmed, or may be harmed, by a project which has
World Bank funding.

The EBRD proposal has been commented on in the following terms by two former Inspection Panel
chairmen:

(cid:1) the proposed compliance mechanism does not guarantee independence for the panel body;

(cid:1) the mechanism cover only part of the EBRD’s activities;

(cid:1) disclosure of information concerning drafts subject to the mechanism is conditional and vague;

(cid:1) persons appointed to the compliance panel do not enjoy sufficiently clear autonomy and effectiveness;

(cid:1) to judge from the proposal, much more emphasis is placed on problem solving than on compliance.

Is the Commission aware of the EBRD proposal and, if so, has it checked the draft against the criteria

1.
laid down by the G8 in July 2000, such as independence, transparency, etc.?

2.

3.

4.

Does the Commission agree with the above criticisms?

If so, does the Commission plan to take action in this connection vis-à-vis the EBRD?

Does the Commission plan to draw greater attention to the proposal and, if so, in what way?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2003)

The draft proposal for an Independent Recourse Mechanism referred to by the Honourable Member has
already been discussed by the Board of Governors and the Board of Directors of the EBRD and has been
endorsed in principle by its committee for financial operations and policies, which is responsible for such
matters.

C 78 E/18

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

A wide-ranging public consultation exercise on the draft proposal was launched in October 2002 on the
EBRD website and the comments received will be examined and taken into account in the final drafting of
the Independent Recourse Mechanism. The Honourable Member’s criticisms have therefore been passed on
to the EBRD Board of Governors by the Commission.

It should, however, be noted that the final decision on the matter, which is expected in April 2003, will be
taken by the EBRD Board of Directors alone. It should also be remembered that, while all G8 members,
the European Community and all the Member States are represented on it, the Board of Directors must
also take account of the institution’s mandate and specific operational requirements.

(2004/C 78 E/0018)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0487/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: El Khosheh judgment

In its reply to my Written Question E-3652/02 (1) the Commission states that it: ‘… was encouraged by the
initial measures taken by the Egyptian authorities to restore calm to the area and bring those responsible
to justice’.

Is the Commission aware that the police stood by inactive when the disturbances occurred in El Khosheh
in January 2000, and has it raised the role of the police with the Egyptian authorities?

Is the Commission aware that the judicial verdict in the case relating to the violence in El Khosheh in
January 2000 is to be announced on 27 February 2003?

Will the Commission be present when the judgment is passed and can it issue a report on this?

(1) See page 9.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

The Commission’s understanding is that security forces were quickly brought in from outside to El
Khosheh to restore law and order, possibly in recognition that the local police in El Khosheh were unable
to do so. The villages were also visited almost immediately by Ministers and senior officials with an explicit
brief to restore calm and to give assurances that those responsible for the outrages would be brought to
justice. These immediate reactions contrasted strongly and positively with the official reactions to previous
events in El Khosheh although questions remain concerning the behavior of local security forces.

The Commission is aware that the initial verdicts at the first trial were seen by many Coptic commentators
as falling far short of assurances that the guilty would pay for their misdeeds. The verdict of the retrial
announced on 27 February 2003 (only two defendents were convicted against four in the first trial) may
revive criticism of the court although some human rights and Coptic sources caution against speculation
that the court has been biased in favour of the defendents. It is a civil not a military or emergency court
and it is quite possible that the prosecutor general will again bring the decision to the attention of the
Court of Cassation after the presiding judge publishes the reasons for its decision.

Although the Commission was not present in court the Commission Delegation and Member State
embassies in Cairo have closely followed this case and will continue to do so. And representations will be
made through the normal channels if it is considered appropriate.