WRITTEN QUESTION E-1960/03 by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission. Road transport managers.
Date: 2003-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: board of management, carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, carrier, interpretation of the law, recognition of diplomas, right of establishment

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/379

(cid:1) this surge of over 300 000 voters after the announcement of free goods for votes may be directly
attributed to this ‘special offer’, which was announced hourly on State radio, since the enormous
increase in voting after the announcement was not consistent with the voting pattern for the first day
of voting,

(cid:1) senior government officials met after the first day of voting and decided to use ‘further agitation’ to

promote a ‘Yes’ vote, which is specifically banned under Lithuanian electoral law,

(cid:1) the extraordinary efforts of senior officials and businessmen, especially the free goods for votes offered

in the supermarket chain, materially affected the outcome of the referendum?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member falls exclusively within the competence of Lithuania as a
democratic and sovereign country. It is also fully within the responsibility of Lithuania to organise the
Accession Referendum Information Campaign, including the choice of the slogans.

The referendum on Lithuania’s accession to the Union was held on 10 and 11 May 2003. There was a
63,3 % turnout and 91,07 % voted in favour of accession.

The organisation of the Referendum has been based on the Lithuanian Referendum Law. According to this
law any complaints about possible violations of the law, which prohibits campaigning during 30 hours
before the referendum and on the days of the referendum are to be handled by the Central Electoral
Committee of Lithuania. Following the referendum on Lithuania’s accession to the Union, several
Lithuanian citizens submitted complaints, which have been dealt with by the Central Electoral Committee
of Lithuania. As a result the referendum has been considered as being valid.

(2004/C 88 E/0385)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1960/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Road transport managers

Is the Commission of the opinion that, in order to implement correctly Council Directive 96/26/EC (1) on
admission to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator [etc.], a
Member State must require road transport operators to employ a road transport manager, in the strict
sense of the term (i.e. have an employer/employee relationship according to national law), as opposed to
having a different contractual relationship (such as a contract for services with a self-employed manager)
that meets all the requirements imposed by the Directive?

(1) OJ L 124, 23.5.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Article 3(1) of Council Directive 96/26/EC of 29 April 1996 on admission to the occupation of road
haulage operator and road passenger transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates
and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of
establishment in national and international transport operations, stipulates that where a transport operator
is a natural person but does not himself possess the required professional competence, he must have a

C 88 E/380

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

designated transport manager, who satisfies the Directive’s good repute and professional competence
criteria and who continuously and effectively manages the transport operations. If the transport operator is
not a natural person, the good repute criterion and professional competence criteria must still be satisfied
by the transport manager, who again continuously and effectively manages the transport operations.

The Commission notes that in all cases the transport manager must be continuously and effectively
managing the undertaking’s transport operations. It is by this criterion that compliance with the Directive’s
requirements is to be judged. The Directive is however silent as to whether this can be achieved by directly
employing a transport manager or by a different contractual arrangement and hence neither option is
automatically excluded.

(2004/C 88 E/0386)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2011/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Application of the Community ‘acquis’ in Cyprus

(17 June 2003)

Thousands of Turkish Cypriots have left the territory of northern Cyprus that has been under occupation
since 1974, and today they represent scarcely 50 % of the numbers who used to live there before the
invasion of ‘Attila’ (18 % of the total population according to the 1972 official census), as continually
stated by the Turkish Cypriot newspaper ‘Afrika’, which is relentlessly persecuted by the Denktash regime.

According to statements made by Mr Papadopoulos, the President of Cyprus, on Greek state television
(NET) on 18 May 2003, Cyprus’s land registration office officially registered the amount of real assets
belonging to Turkish Cypriots (cid:1) before the invasion by the Turkish army (cid:1) at 12,9 %. In the same
interview Mr Papadopoulos stressed that the ban on vessels flying Cypriot flags preventing them from
approaching Turkish ports, regardless of their ownership, is still in force.

Is the maintenance of this ban on vessels of a country which from 1 May 2004 will be an EU Member
State consistent with Community law? Provisions in the Annan plan restrict the amount of property and
the number of Greek refugees who are to return to the regions intended (cid:1) under the plan (cid:1) to be under
the administration of the Turkish Cypriot ‘component state’, as it is referred to in the plan. Are these
provisions consistent with the Community ‘acquis’? What comments does the Commission have to make
on the failure of Mr Denktash’s main project concerning ‘forced separation of the Greeks and Turks of
Cyprus since trouble will begin if they coexist’, after thousands of Greeks and Turks crossed the ‘green
line’, without
the occurrence of any noteworthy incident between them? Is it consistent with the
Community ‘acquis’ that 9 %, in actual fact, of the native population of a country (which owns 12,9 % of
its territory) should be in control of 29,5 % of the Cyprus’s total territory, as the Annan plan proposes?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2003)

As the European Council stated in Luxembourg in 1997, the solution of the Cyprus problem has to be
found through talks under the aegis of the United Nations (UN). Only the UN has a mandate of good
offices. The UN Secretary General Kofi Annan recently (1 April 2003) presented a report on his mission of
good offices in Cyprus where he addresses the problems found since his mandate started in 1999.

As regards the restriction on vessels flying Cypriot flags from approaching Turkish ports, such a measure
would not be consistent with the ‘acquis communautaire’. While there is no obligation on Turkey to apply
the ‘acquis’ in this area, as a Candidate country, and in the framework of the Association Agreement, it has
been encouraged on several occasions to make progress with the adoption and implementation of the