WRITTEN QUESTION E-1654/03 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Aid to displaced populations in Latin American countries.
Date: 2003-05-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Colombia, EU aid, European Commission, Latin America, commitment of expenditure, non-governmental organisation, transfer of population

C 51 E/120

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

legal and other stratagems (cid:1) to deprive those institutions of their property. The result of this tactic is that
the Greek minority’s institutions (which are recognised in Turkish law) are being stripped of their real
estate.

Recently (cid:1) following pressure from the EU (cid:1) Turkey announced that there would be changes in the way
it dealt with these institutions to bring the Turkish administration into line with EU practice. Despite this,
representatives of the Greek community in Istanbul are vigorously protesting that the whole affair is
developing into the legalisation of the unlawful confiscation of property since the Turkish administration
has declared that it is not prepared to recognise acquired rights and, in particular, the ownership of land
confiscated from property owned by the non-Muslim communities in Turkey. According to the official
register drawn up in 1923, the Greek minority’s institutions in Istanbul owned a total of 11 000 plots of
land. The administrations of the minority’s institutions recently sent the Turkish administration a list of
1 700 institutions owning land but the Turkish authorities replied that they would only grant applications
in respect of far fewer than those 1 700.

What view does the Council take of the Turkish administration’s tactics? Are they totally consistent with
applicable EU rules on the protection of minority institutions’ rights to own property? Is the Council
satisfied with the recent changes announced by the Turkish Government? How will the Council respond to
secure effective protection for the property of all the non-Muslim communities in Turkey? Will the Council
make a settlement of this problem one of the conditions of opening negotiations for the accession of
Turkey to the EU?

Reply

(2 October 2003)

The Council is fully aware of the precarious situation of non-muslim communities in Turkey, and of
1.
the particular problem as regards property. The way in which the Turkish authorities, namely the General
Directorate for Foundations (VGM), are dealing with the matter is raising serious concern. The changes
which can be expected from the forthcoming 6th reform package appear to be limited to extending post-
facto the deadline for the submission of property registration claims. Such an extension could appear
unsufficient to address the real problem.

2.
The Honourable Member may note that the Council attaches a very high importance to this issue. In
all recent meetings with Turkey in the framework of the Association Agreement and of political dialogue,
the Council has pointed to the restrictiveness of the regime applicable to religious foundations and urged
Turkey to take a different approach. The current worrying developments are being followed with the
closest attention. The Honourable Member may be assured that the Council will respond to the situation
and do its best to help protection of the property of non-muslim communities in Turkey.

3.
As regards the question whether the opening of accession negotiations with Turkey is linked to this
problem, the Honourable Member is referred to the revised Turkey Accession Partnership which contains a
specific priority on freedom of religion. Under this priority, Turkey is required to establish conditions for
the functioning of religious communities which are in line with the practice of EU Member States. It is
specified that this includes the enjoyment of property rights in line with Protocol No 1 of the European
Convention on Human Rights.

(2004/C 51 E/136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1654/03

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Aid to displaced populations in Latin American countries

(16 May 2003)

The Commission informed the budgetary authority about commitment appropriations carried over from
2002-2003 in accordance with Article 9(2)(a) of the Financial Regulation, but they have been partially or
totally cancelled because the Commission was unable to commit
the funds before 31 March.
The appropriations carried over totalled EUR 22,5 million, EUR 16 million of which was committed,
which means that EUR 6,4 million were cancelled automatically.

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/121

the Commission said that out of

appropriations definitively cancelled
Furthermore,
(EUR 6,4 million) 42 % (EUR 2,7 million) was intended to fund measures for the benefit of displaced
people in Colombia. The justification offered by the Commission was that as soon as the report was
approved the Commission’s decision-making procedures were launched, but that unfortunately the decision
was only taken on 31 March, and was not validated by computer until the morning of 1 April … which
meant that the accounting system refused the validation of the transaction.

total

the

The author of this question feels that this is an extremely serious matter and is evidence of laxity on the
part of the Commission as regards its obligations in a sensitive area to which Parliament gives priority.

In view of this can the Commission say whether it can explain what steps it has taken to avoid such
deplorable events in future?

Can the Commission say whether it can offer, with a view to the next budget, any alternative to
compensate the beneficiaries in Colombia for the irreversible loss of these appropriations?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that the EUR 2 700 000 appropriation for project
CO-2002-2958 to assist displaced people in Colombia (Atención básica y desarrollo integral de soluciones
de restablecimiento para poblaciones desarraigadas y víctimas de la violencia en el Suroccidente
Colombiano), which was proposed by the non-governmental organisations Solidaridad Internacional and
Movimondo, and for which the Commission took a financing decision on 31 March 2003, will be
financed from the commitment appropriation entered in Article B7-312 of the budget for the financial
year 2003. The Commission can also assure the Honourable Member that the contract procedures are
nearing completion.

Validating the carryover of the commitment for this project from 2002-2003 after the proper deadline
(through the Sincom accounting system) is a complicated procedure. Regrettably the concomitant transfer
of responsibilities from one department to another, combined with the introduction of a new electronic
management system, caused a slip-up which was responsible for this deplorable situation.

The Commission would stress that all the factors contributing to this accident are one-off problems which
will not recur. It can assure the Honourable Member that, in view of the serious humanitarian situation in
Colombia,
to commit and disburse the
EUR 21 000 000 set aside for the country under Article B7-312 for the period 2003-2004.

the departments concerned will do all

in their power

Also, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the cancelled commitment appropri-
ation totals EUR 4,4 (not 6,4) million. This is made up of the above EUR 2,7 million and EUR 1,7 million
earmarked for financing an EU-Iran energy project.

(2004/C 51 E/137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1655/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject: Italians in Germany (cid:1) thousands faced with immediate expulsion and refusal of residence rights

Thousands of cases have been reported in the Federal Republic of Germany of Italian citizens being faced
with immediate expulsion or the refusal of their residence rights. If these reports are true, it is clear that
such illegal practices are a violation of the rights of large numbers of Italian workers.

Can the Commission state whether it intends to investigate the matter and include its findings in a chapter
of its annual report on the state of fundamental rights in the Union?