WRITTEN QUESTION E-1325/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council. EU and US measures to isolate the Transnistrian region, thereby increasing its dependence on Ukraine and Russia.
Date: 2003-04-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Moldova, OSCE, United States, civil war, international negotiations, political cooperation, settlement of disputes

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.

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/75

More than ten years after the end of the civil war that divided the country, the conflict in Transnistria
remains unresolved. Large stockpiles of arms and ammunition remain in Transnistria and the region has
become a source of and a transit route for illegal trafficking. Thus, a rapid and sustainable solution to the
Transnistria conflict is all the more important. Failure to resolve it is the single largest impediment to
Moldova’s political and economic development and one of the root causes of poverty. The Council has
reiterated the readiness of the EU to contribute constructively to a political settlement and its commitment
to make additional efforts in the OSCE framework to reach a peaceful solution in full respect of Moldova’s
territorial integrity.

The Council has continuously urged the parties to the conflict to further the negotiations with a view to
finding a solution as soon as possible. The leadership of the secessionnist Transnistrian region has been
obstructionist and shown unwillingness
thereby impeding meaningful
negotiations. Consequently, the Council decided to implement targeted sanctions in the form of a travel
ban on seventeen people of the Transnistrian leadership considered to be primarily responsible for the lack
of co-operation to promote a political settlement of the conflict. Additional measures could be considered
at a later date in light of further developments.

to change the status quo,

In line with the view of the current OSCE chairmanship on the need for increasing pressure on the
Transnistrian Leadership to make progress in the negotiation process, the US, all the Acceding States,
Associated European countries and members of the EEE also decided to adopt similar measures. These
measures underscore the decisiveness of the EU and its partners in bringing the Transnistrian leadership in
result-oriented negotiations.

The Council underlines that a sustainable solution to the situation of Transnistria requires good will by all
sides. The Council has also called on the Moldovan side to take the most constructive and flexible
approach to suggestions submitted by the mediators. The Council welcomed the recent initiative by
President Voronin on a new constitution and the recent establishment of a constitutional drafting
commission with equal representation of both sides. While continuing to support the negotiating process
under the current five-sided format, the EU encourages this new initiative and would be willing to facilitate
the work of the constitutional drafting commission as appropriate.

The Council is working actively with all parties to seek a lasting solution and is also ready to examine all
measures helping to promote a political settlement of the conflict. In addition to existing assistance to
Moldova, the Council will assess, within the context of available resources, what measures could form part
of a package to support an eventual settlement of the Transnistria conflict, contributing to increasing
stability and security and to reviving economic development in the whole region on a sound basis.

(2004/C 51 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1329/03

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Council

(8 April 2003)

Subject:

‘Prestige’: Community aid

The sinking of the ‘Prestige’ off the Galician coast in 19 November 2002, caused one of the largest-ever
ecological disasters, with appalling economic and social consequences for a massively fisheries-dependent,
and hence fragile, Objective 1 region.

This disastrous accident, which did not affect Portugal solely and simply because of sea-currents, once
again raised the issue of safety at sea and how to control transport of hydrocarbons. The issue is of
fundamental concern to a country like Portugal, with an immense coastline and extremely vulnerable
islands like Madeira and the Azores.

Following the wreck, the Commission presented a Communication on stepping-up safety at sea, providing
for: earlier application of the measures in the ERIKA I package (measures on port State control of vessels,
closer monitoring of the performance of the classification societies and bringing forward the timetable for