WRITTEN QUESTION E-1929/03 by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Council. Population movements in the oil-rich areas of Sudan.
Date: 2003-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sudan, advanced technology industry, arms trade, civil war, cooperation policy, humanitarian aid, oil industry, the EU's international role, transfer of population

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/161

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2003)

The Swiss Federal Ordinance of 20 September 2002 referred to by the Honourable Member lays down a
special scheme for certain domestic transport operations within Switzerland only and imposes a minimum
fine of 500 Swiss francs for misuse of the ‘S’ sign. Swiss hauliers importing and exporting goods do not
benefit from the ‘S’ scheme. According to the information available to the Commission, the Swiss police
carry out rigorous checks which, together with the high fine, mean that the regulations are strictly adhered
to.

The Commission has examined the regulations and concluded that there does not seem to be any
discrimination within the meaning of the Agreement between the Community and Switzerland on land
transport since Swiss hauliers carrying out cross-border haulage are affected by the ‘S’ scheme in the same
way as EU hauliers. In addition, the Agreement between the Community and Switzerland does not apply
to Swiss domestic traffic (Article 2(1) of the Agreement). This haulage is therefore not covered by the
Agreement.

Furthermore, the Ordinance specifies that the ‘S’ scheme applies only for about 23 % of the year. During
that period, about 15 % of lorries benefit from the scheme, the proportion of lorries which benefit from
the ‘S’ scheme during the year as a whole therefore being 3 to 5 %. It should also be pointed out that the
alternating one-way traffic flow in the St Bernard tunnel also applies to heavy goods vehicles displaying the
‘S’ sign.

(2004/C 51 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1929/03

by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Council

Subject: Population movements in the oil-rich areas of Sudan

(13 June 2003)

The bloody civil war in Sudan has claimed two million lives. Four million people have fled their homes.
European Coalition on Oil
in Sudan (ECOS), a network of 70 European organisations, predominantly
church-based and other Christian bodies, notes that tens of thousands of Sudanese nationals have been
forced to flee from Reweng County in the West Upper Nile region as a result of conflicts over oil
extraction, and with the knowledge of the oil companies. A large proportion of the revenue which oil
brings into Sudan goes on military expenditure. Only 2 % of the Sudanese budget is spent on health care,
while 48 % goes for military and police purposes, e.g. the purchase of Russian Mig 29 fighters, Mi 24
helicopter gunships and T 72 tanks.

What measures is the EU taking through the Council to influence the Sudanese government and the oil
companies to halt this deliberate movement of population from the oil-rich areas? What is the EU doing to
persuade countries not to sell expensive high-technology weaponry to the warring parties in Sudan?

Reply

(7 October 2003)

The EU is aware that
fierce fighting between
the oil-rich Southern Sudan has been the region of
Government forces and the SPLA. Some escalation, as the Honourable Member of Parliament pointed out,
had severe consequences for the population and impeded humanitarian access to the southern region. The
EU expressed deep concern over these unacceptable situations and called for unrestricted, immediate and
unlimited access by international aid agencies whenever the civilian population was directly or indirectly
affected by the conflict. Furthermore, the EU recalled the humanitarian principle that civilian populations
must be protected from the consequences of military operations and urged both parties to the conflict to
put into effect immediately the December 1999 TCHA Agreement on Implementation of Principles
Governing the Protection and Provision of Humanitarian Assistance to War Affected Civilians.

C 51 E/162

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

In the framework of the regular EU dialogue meetings with both the Government of the Sudan (GoS) and
the SPLM/A, the EU emphasises that they have to comply with the basic principles of humanitarian and
human rights.

Since the suspension of its cooperation with the Sudan in 1990 the EU has been limiting its assistance to
humanitarian activities, emergency relief and food aid. In December 2000, the EU launched the so-called
‘humanitarian plus’ programme which was designed to go beyond a strictly humanitarian approach and
was also aimed at rehabilitation needs in the more stable areas of the North and South of Sudan.

Following the signature of the Machakos Agreement in July last year, the priority for the EU in its relations
with the Sudan has been the promotion of a comprehensive peace settlement which would also be
conducive to the improvement of the situation of Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) and favour their
return and resettlement in their region of origin.

The Council does not have any concrete information on the supply of expensive high-technology
weaponry to the warring parties in the Sudan, but recalls that the Council decision of 15 March 1994
purposing an embargo on arms, ammunition and military equipment on the Sudan is still in force.

(2004/C 51 E/179)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1932/03

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 June 2003)

Subject: Olympic Airways

Various sources allege that Greece continues to tolerate conduct such as that set out in Article 2 of the
Commission Decision of 11 December 2002 on Olympic Airways. What action has the Commission taken
since December 2002 to ensure that Greece and OA put an end to such conduct (e.g. tolerance of
persistent non-payment of social security contributions, etc.)?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

On 11 December 2002, the Commission indeed adopted a decision against Greece for State aid granted to
Olympic Airways. The Decision concluded that State aid previously granted by Greece and authorised by
the Commission in 1998 was incompatible with the EC Treaty as the relevant conditions had not been
met; it also found that Olympic Airways had been receiving new unlawful aid. The Greek Government was
informed of the Commission Decision on 13 December 2002.

The Greek authorities were given two months in which to recover the incompatible and unlawful aid. That
period expired on 13 February 2003.

Correspondence between the Commission and the Greek authorities between February and March 2003
revealed that no concrete action had been taken by the Greek Government. On 23 April 2003, therefore,
the Commission decided to bring the case before the Court of Justice for failure to apply its Decision on
Olympic Airways.

In addition to this legal action, the Commission continues to remind the Greek Government at regular
intervals of its obligations under the Commission Decision of 11 December 2002.