WRITTEN QUESTION E-1331/03 by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Minefields on the (eastern) border between Greece and Turkey.
Date: 2003-04-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, Türkiye, anti-personnel weapon, civilian victim, frontier, international convention, statistics

C 51 E/76

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

withdrawing single-hull oil tankers from service), and the ERIKA II (measures on earlier establishment of
the European Maritime Safety Agency and compensation for victims of oil spillages), greater international
intervention and the introduction of sanctions, for pollution crime, including penal sanctions.

The European Parliament demanded that the Council adopt ‘without further delay’ a common position on
the proposal for the establishment of a Fund for the Compensation of Oil Pollution damage in European
Waters, in paragraph 9 of its resolution of 19 December 2002. Can the Council answer to the following
questions:

1. What is its position on this?

2.

3.

If no decision has yet been taken, when will a position be adopted?

If there are obstacles to establishing the Compensation Fund in question, what is the nature of these
obstacles, and in what do they consist?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

In the framework of the ‘ERIKA II’ package, the Commission submitted a proposal aimed at establishing an
EU supplementary compensation fund for oil pollution damage (COPE fund). However, in December 2000,
the Council considered it preferable to ‘ensure a proper and, as far as possible, global regime for liability
and compensation in cases of pollution damage resulting from contamination by petroleum products and
other noxious and hazardous substances transported by ships’. It consequently agreed, in April 2001, on a
common approach for negotiations within the IMO framework. The common approach emphasised that
‘an agreement within the IMO on an optional supplementary compensation fund should be reached as
soon as possible, preferably by 2003’.

On 6 December 2002, the Council (Transport/Telecommunications/Energy) agreed in its conclusions on
the safety of ships and pollution prevention, to examine immediately the Commission’s proposal for a
regulation on the establishment of a Community fund for the compensation of oil pollution damage in
European waters (COPE fund), in the event that a supplementary compensation fund for oil pollution was
not established by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), with the aim of establishing it before the
end of 2003. This was confirmed by the European Council on 20/21 March 2003.

The Diplomatic Conference held in London from 12 to 16 May 2003 decided to create a new ceiling for
the IOPCF Compensation Fund, in line with the strategy decided by the Council in its conclusions on the
subject in December 2002.

(2004/C 51 E/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1331/03

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(9 April 2003)

Subject: Minefields on the (eastern) border between Greece and Turkey

As a follow-up to the Council’s answer (E-2960/02 (1), 20 February 2003) to my question on minefields on
the (eastern) border between Greece and Turkey, I should first of all like to draw the Council’s attention to
the following report which appeared in the 26 March 2003 edition of the Athens daily newspaper
Kathimerini:

Yesterday an illegal immigrant from Somalia was killed when he stepped on a mine in an attempt to
enter Greece from Turkey through the Evros region in Thrace. The man, whose identity was not made
public, entered a fenced, signposted minefield along with a second Somali, who was injured, the army
said. Another 18 Somalis were arrested on the fringes of the minefield.

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/77

In connection with this report, can the Council state whether it stands by the assessment given in its
answer to my question:

As regards specifically Greece and Turkey, both countries have come close to depositing jointly their
instruments of ratification (for Greece) or accession (for Turkey) to the Ottawa Convention. Marking
and protection of Greek minefields along the Turkish border have, according to Greek sources, already
resulted in a reduction of accidents by almost 90 % (cf. Landmine Monitor Report 2002 of the
International Campaign to Ban Landmines)?

In addition, could the Council state how many people have to its knowledge been killed or injured (please
give separate statistics) on this border since the entry into force of the Ottowa Convention (1 March
1999)?

(1) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 68.

Reply

(29 September 2003)

1.
After a meeting in the Turkish coastal town of Kas on 3 May, the Greek and Turkish Prime Ministers
announced in a joint statement that the procedures necessary to make their countries parties to the Ottawa
convention (ratification for Greece, accession for Turkey) had now been completed both in Greece and
Turkey. They declared that the two countries would now proceed to submit simultaneously their respective
instruments to the UN Secretary General.

The Council is not in the possession of statistics on casualties caused by landmines on the Greek-
2.
Turkish border. The Honourable Member may refer for this to the respective national authorities.
However, according to the latest annual report (2002) of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines
(ICBL), there is no central register of mine casualties in Greece, while in Turkey the Turkish Human Rights
Foundation is collecting reports of casualties which are being issued in monthly bulletins. ICBL information
resources can be consulted on the website www.icbl.org.

3.
As regards the results of marking and protection of Greek minefields along the Turkish border, the
Council is not in a position to verify the extent of the reduction of accidents indicated by Greek sources
(almost 90 %).

(2004/C 51 E/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1332/03

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Council

(9 April 2003)

Subject: Transparency in trade policy discussions

In the context of the increasing transparency of trade policy discussions, the decision by the Danish
Presidency to publicise the agendas of the 133 Committee on trade was widely welcomed.

The Greek Presidency has so far not followed this example. If this is a specific Presidency decision, what
are the reasons for not continuing this excellent precedent?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that public access to European Parliament, Council
and Commission documents is governed by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 30 May 2001 (1).