WRITTEN QUESTION E-1288/03 by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission. Law No 383 of 18 October 2001.
Date: 2003-04-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, control of State aid, exchange of information, government bill, natural disaster, restriction on competition

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/73

budget by activity. The Commission therefore has no intention of proposing use of the instruments
provided for in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999, i.e. proposing that funds over and above
the existing funding for heading 4 be mobilised.

(1) OJ C 172, 18.6.1999, p. 1.

(2004/C 51 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1284/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Council

(4 April 2003)

Subject: European Union action to ensure civil and respectful treatment for prisoners of war in Iraq

Right from the outset of the war in Iraq we have seen disturbing images of the inhuman treatment to
which prisoners from the Anglo-American alliance are being subjected. The conduct of the Iraqi authorities
manifestly contravenes the provisions of the Geneva Convention as regards respect for prisoners of war.
It may very soon be that EU citizens are prisoners of war of the Iraqi authorities too.

What action will the Council take in this regard?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Council

is strongly attached to the full respect of the Geneva Convention relative to the
1.
treatment of prisoners of war by all parties to a conflict, in particular as regards the general protection of
prisoners of war under part II of the Geneva Convention, and especially its Article 13, which provides
inter alia that prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated, and that prisoners of war must at all
times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public
curiosity.

2.
Regarding the last element of the question, as the war in Iraq has ended with the Iraqi regime’s defeat
and the liberation of all prisoners held by Iraqi forces, no more particular action to ensure the protection
of prisoners of war in captivity by the Iraqis is required.

(2004/C 51 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1288/03

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject: Law No 383 of 18 October 2001

The Italian Government has amended Law No 383 of 18 October 2001 (the so-called ‘Tremonti Two’ Act),
which has been in force since 25 October 2001, to limit the scope of the measures to certain areas of
Italy, and in particular to those hit by natural disasters in recent months. In this way, Law No 383 will no
longer apply to general impacts but to very localised ones with respect to potential beneficiaries.

Bearing in mind that it would be appropriate for this provision to be submitted to the European
Commission for scrutiny, even though it has received no notification of it to date and the decrees
implementing the law are soon to be issued, could the Commission indicate what action it will take to
avert the risk of a potential infringement of EU competition rules?

C 51 E/74

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2003)

The amendments to Law No 383 of 18 October 2001 (the so-called ‘Tremonti Two’ Act) have not been
notified to the Commission under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission asked the Italian authorities for precise information on this Act, which will be analysed
under State aid rules. The Commission will take a position once the analysis of the file is completed.

(2004/C 51 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1325/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(8 April 2003)

Subject: EU and US measures to isolate the Transnistrian region, thereby increasing its dependence on

Ukraine and Russia

Does the Council recall that in 1940 the Stalin regime took an elongated of land running along the
1.
eastern side of the River Dniester, which until then had belonged to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine, and
added it to the area captured from Romania which was to go to form the Soviet Republic of Moldavia,
with the aim of contributing to the Russification of Moldavia, which was overwhelmingly Romanian-
speaking?

2.
Is the Council aware that on 2 September 1991 the strip of land in question, which now has
700 000 predominantly Slavic-speaking inhabitants, seceded de facto from the State of Moldova, which
had been called into being six days previously, and that on 24 December 1995, on the basis of a 62 %
turnout, 82,5 % of voters in that area approved a constitution for an independent Dniester Republic, which
is now referred to by Moldova as Transnistria?

3.
On 27 February 2003, more than 11 years after the de facto secession of the Dniester Republic, and
after repeated talks with the Moldova Government, the Council adopted Common Position 2003/139/
CFSP (1) banning members of the leadership of the Transnistrian region from travelling to or through EU
Member States. What European interest is served by this? How has the situation changed in the last
11 years? Moreover, why has this step been taken jointly with the US?

Is the Council seeking, through this approach, to re-establish the state of affairs created by Stalin, or
4.
is it endeavouring, in a roundabout way, to alienate the Transnistrian leadership and people further from
the EU and to make them even more totally dependent on Ukraine and Russia, so that the non-Romanian-
speaking minority in Moldova, which opposes reunification with the EU applicant country Romania,
greatly diminishes in size and the possibility of a return to the pre-1940 border, marked by the Dniester,
gradually takes shape?

5. What steps is the Council taking to re-establish and improve relations with the Transnistrian
population with a view to fostering good-neighbourly cooperation between the peoples on either side of
the Dniester?

(1) OJ L 53, 28.2.2003, p. 60.

Reply

(29 September 2003)

At a time when the future relations of the enlarged EU with its Eastern and Southern neighbours are under
thorough discussion, the Council stresses the importance of stability in Moldova for the region and for the
European Union. The Council recognises Moldova’s pro-European choice and is ready to work with
Moldova to support this and to strengthen EU-Moldova relations in order to draw Moldova closer to the
EU. There is agreement in the Council on the need and urgency for greater EU involvement in Moldova’s
situation.