WRITTEN QUESTION E-0359/03 by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Council. Regional policy.
Date: 2003-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU regional policy, accession to the European Union, economic and social cohesion, eligibility criteria

C 51 E/20

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

their efforts, institution building and investment have for years been a focal point of Community assistance
under the PHARE programme. Furthermore,
in 2002, the Commission worked with each negotiating
country to produce an Action Plan for reinforcing administrative and judicial capacity. Implementation of
the Action Plans is now underway. Under the Action Plans, the Commission made available an extra
EUR 250 million, which brought the Community’s total effort to strengthen the administrative and judicial
capacity of the negotiating countries in 2002 to around EUR 1 billion.

Europol is an important instrument of the Union in the fight against organized crime. One instrument to
assess the threat of the different forms of serious international crime is the annual Union Organized Crime
situation report issued by Europol on the basis of Member States contributions.

Corruption is only a very recent competence of Europol. By 6 December 2001 the Council adopted a
Council Decision making Europol competent in the area of combating corruption (1). This Decision entered
into force only on 1 January 2002. In view of the limited resources of Europol the Council has set certain
priorities for Europol. It is up to the Council to decide on these priorities and to amend them if necessary.
This can only happen on a proposal of the Europol Management Board. Corruption does until now not
figure amongst these priority crime areas that Europol has been tasked to deal with. Corruption is,
therefore, not particularly emphasized in the last Union Organized Crime reports.

Europol’s task is to support Member States in their efforts to fight organized crime. This will also apply for
the Candidate Countries once they have acceded to the Union as well as to the Europol Convention. This
support function can only be carried out in close cooperation with all Member States, in future including
also the new members.

Europol does not have any power to monitor the corruption situation in the Union and its neighbouring
countries. Any involvement of Europol requires an approach based on partnership. A report on the
organized crime situation in the future Member States including the situation in the area of corruption
would only be feasible in close cooperation with the countries concerned and based on their contributions.
In order to get an overall picture any approach should focus on the whole Union and not be limited to
just the new Member States. If this became an additional priority for Europol it would be necessary to
consider in the competent fora the need for allocation of additional means to Europol in order to enable
the organization to cope successfully with the additional tasks.

(1) OJ C 358, 15.12.2001.

(2004/C 51 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0359/03

by Jean-Claude Fruteau (PSE) to the Council

(12 February 2003)

Subject: Regional policy

With the enlargement, 2004 will see the rebirth of Europe as a political unit built around values such as
democracy and human rights. Europe is thus equipping itself with the means to construct an area of
prosperity which can bring its weight to bear in the context of globalisation. The fact remains that there is
one major challenge to face: that of solidarity. The arrival of ten new countries cannot fail to pose
problems as a result of the disparities it will bring with it. The risks of financial erosion resulting from the
statistical effect on the number of regions eligible for objective 1 are very real. In the context of post-2006,
therefore, we must think about establishing criteria which are more qualitative than quantitative.

Could the Greek Presidency give us information on this particular point and give us its priorities as regards
the future eligibility criteria?

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/21

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Council has not examined the future eligibility criteria as such since no formal proposal has been put
forward by the Commission.

On 16 June 2003 the Council adopted the report by the Working Party on Structural Measures, which
conveyed the delegations’ comments and views on the Commission’s second progress report on economic
and social cohesion.

(2004/C 51 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0422/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Failure resulting from deliberate opposition of the peace agreement following the civil war and

dictatorship in Guatemala

Does the Commission recall that between 1954 and 1996 the Central American state of Guatemala
1.
was in a state of permanent and violent conflict, which left 200 000 dead, between a government with
strong links to the military and foreign business interests on the one hand and, on the other, the largely
rural Indian population and some urban workers, and that this conflict finally came to an end with the
signing of a peace accord and the establishment of a Truth Committee?

2.
Is the Commission familiar with the conclusion of the UN observers that while it is true that the state
is not, as in the past, directly responsible for wholesale violation of human rights, it has nevertheless in the
past three years again taken a wrong turn, in that the recommendations contained in the final report of the
Truth Committee (including investigations into the fate of 50 000 missing persons) are not being
implemented, no independent judiciary is being put in place, the government is not holding any form of
dialogue with the population, journalists and other people concerned with human rights are exposed to
threats, crimes from the past are going unpunished, the military budget has been greatly increased at the
expense of social expenditure, hardly any opportunity for participation by, or strengthening of the socio-
economic position of, the Indian population has been established, many political opponents of the ruling
group in the province of Quiché have been lynched, the influence of the military on the government has
grown, and armed groups with links to the army maintain a strong influence in country areas, while the
government lacks either the will or the power to take any action to oppose them?

Does the Commission take the view that,

3.
in so far as the EU can exert any influence through
development ties and trade relations, a reversion in Guatemala to dictatorship and civil war should be
prevented by all possible means?

Source: Nederland 2, current affairs programme Twee Vandaag, 3 January 2003

(2004/C 51 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0423/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Continuing campaign of intimidation and murder against the Indian majority in Guatemala by the

ruling elite of European origin, and possible reinstatement of dictatorship

Is the Commission aware that in Guatemala recently intimidation and murder attempts have been
1.
used to oppose the exhumation and listing of victims of oppression in the past, the updating of archives of
mass murder and judicial proceedings against war crimes?

Is the Commission also aware that the former dictator General Efrain Rios Montt, whose FRG party

2.
regained power after the elections in 1999, is again a presidential candidate?