WRITTEN QUESTION P-1681/03 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Tripartite Agreement between the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the EIB.
Date: 2003-05-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European Court of Auditors, European Investment Bank, European Parliament, agreement (EU), exchange of information, financial management, management audit, negotiation of an agreement (EU)

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/123

issue of the removal and retention of children’s organs without parental consent is not
The general
expressly addressed in the Protocol. However, the interpretative notes for the official records (‘travaux
préparatoires’) of the negotiation of the Protocol (A/55/383/Add.1) state that ‘the travaux préparatoires
should indicate that the removal of organs from children with the consent of a parent or guardian for
legitimate medical or therapeutic reasons should not be considered exploitation’.

Greece recently introduced an initiative relating to the adoption by the Council of a draft Framework
Decision on the prevention and control of trafficking in human organs and tissues. The text of that draft
Framework Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (1) and is currently under
consideration. It was presented to the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home
Affairs of the Parliament on 23 April 2003. The general issue of the removal and retention of children’s
organs without parental consent is not expressly addressed in the draft Framework Decision.

On the basis of the EC Treaty, the Commission, under Article 152, has elaborated a proposal for a
Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation,
procurement, testing, processing, storage, and distribution of human tissues and cells (2), now in discussion
in Parliament and Council. This proposal is focused on the quality and safety aspects of the use of tissues
and cells, because Article 152 provides for public health protection and not the implementation of ethical
objectives as such. However, some international basic ethical principles are encouraged in the proposals,
e.g. the principle of mandatory consent.

The Commission envisages the development of a framework strategy for Community action on organs.
A Conference is foreseen for the second half of 2003, under the Italian presidency with Commission
support, with the objective of arriving at clear recommendations on future initiatives. In the meantime, the
Commission is compiling information on the situation in respect of organ transplantation in Member
States and Applicant Countries.

the Community Public Health Action programme establishes three main
The work programme of
objectives concerning quality and safety aspects of organ transplantation as priorities for 2003: identifying
factors influencing the quality and safety of organs for transplantation; monitoring the organ donation-
transplantation processes and developing networking for effective exchange of
information between
countries.

(1) OJ C 100, 26.4.2003.
(2) OJ C 227 E, 24.9.2002.

(2004/C 51 E/139)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1681/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Subject: Tripartite Agreement between the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the EIB

On 19 March 2003 the Tripartite Agreement between the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the
European Investment Bank expired.

Can the Commission say what is the state of play of renegociation of the Agreement, as requested by
Parliament in paragraph 34 of its resolution of November 2002 on the Annual report 2001 of the
Investment Bank? Can the Commission explain how Parliament’s requests in the above-mentioned
resolution will be implemented?

the Commission inform Parliament’s competent committee (Cocobu) of

Will
agreement before it is signed?

the draft

text

for an

Does the Commission agree that, in accordance with Article 248 of the EC Treaty, the audit by the Court
of measures financed from the Community budget and managed by the Bank must include an assessment
whether the management by the Bank has been sound?

Will the Commission make sure that the new agreement will be available in all Community languages and
not only in French?

C 51 E/124

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2003)

On 4 February 2003, the Court of Auditors expressed the wish that the Tripartite Agreement (TA)
concluded on 19 March 1999 not be re-conducted by tacit agreement but be amended in certain respects.
In a short while the Commission has established a new text after consultation of the European Investment
Bank (EIB) on the basis of modifications proposed by the Court of Auditors. Until the signature of the
amended TA by the Presidents of the three Institutions concerned, there is a mutual consensus that the
expired TA be further applied. The Parliament’s requests are taken into account in so far as they do not
request that modifications be brought to the EC Treaty.

In accordance with paragraph 34 of Parliament’s resolution of November 2002 the Commission will
inform the Parliament and send the amended Tripartite Agreement.

The extent of the right of control of the Court of Auditors in respect of the EIB’s activity in managing
Community expenditure and revenue is determined by Article 248 of the EC Treaty. On the one hand,
according to Article 248(2) the Court of Auditors shall examine whether the financial management of all
revenue and expenditure has been sound. On the other hand, Article 248(3) stipulates that to this effect
the Court of Auditors has access to the information necessary for the audit of Community expenditure and
revenue managed by the Bank and that the TA governs this right of access. Like the expired TA, the
amended TA will provide for such rules governing the Court’s right of access to information.

The amended TA will be signed in a single Community language that will form the authentic text.
The Commission will also see to it that a translation into other Community languages will be available
upon request.

(2004/C 51 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1682/03

by Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Subject: Monitoring the safety of maritime traffic and the environmental impact of the project to dredge

the Gulf of La Spezia (Italy)

The Port Authority of La Spezia has launched a project to dredge the approach channel to the Port of La
Spezia at a depth of 15 m by removing 40 000 m3 of sediment with a view to allowing huge container
ships of 6500/6800 TEU to enter the port. This project would involve a substantial extension of the port
and an increase in maritime traffic. The Regional Administrative Court of Genoa has ordered that the
project be put on hold. The project has the dual effect of having a negative impact on the environment
and on the health of citizens living in the area around the port, given that the area has already been
reclaimed (leading to the dispersal of the pollutant substances on the sea bed). The second effect of the
project would be a considerable increase in traffic in the Port of La Spezia, which would have an adverse
impact on shipping safety.

Does the Commission not consider that this plan could have disastrous consequences from the point of
view of its impact on the environment, given that the intention is to excavate a sea bed which has already
been excavated for a long time?

The project would also concern areas adjacent to the port which are considered Sites of Community
Interest (SCIs) (even though not all of the port has been recognised as an SCI (cid:1) see reply to previous
Question H-0849/02 (1)).

Does the Commission not consider that this work would involve a further accumulation and dispersal of
the harmful substances already present in those areas and would ruin the international
image of the
so-called Gulf of the Poets?

Does the Commission not think that the extension of the port (as explicitly stated in the dredging project)
and the ensuing increase in maritime traffic would have a negative impact on safety at sea?