WRITTEN QUESTION E-2011/03 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Application of the Community acquis in Cyprus.
Date: 2003-06-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community acquis, Cyprus, EU relations, Türkiye, accession to the European Union, association agreement (EU), international issue, international sanctions, maritime transport

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

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/381

‘acquis’. Furthermore, the restrictions appear to be contrary to international rules, including those of the
World Trade Organisation (WTO) and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Finally and as a matter of principle, restrictive actions within the field of maritime transport run against
standing Union policy considerations for further liberalising the maritime services sector. The Commission
will continue to raise this issue in its bilateral contacts with Turkey.

With regard to ‘acquis’ related questions in the Annan plan, the Commission wishes to recall that the
European Council has repeatedly stated that the Union would accommodate the terms of a settlement of
the Cyprus problem in line with the principles on which the Union is founded. The Commission cannot
prejudge the outcome of negotiations which have to take place between the parties concerned.

(2004/C 88 E/0387)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2029/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 June 2003)

Subject: Increase in charges for transit visas authorising people travelling between present and future

Members States of the EU to enter Serbia

1.
Is the Commission aware that up until 2002 transit visas at the borders of the former Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro) for people in transit from other European countries were issued at a cost of
between 6 and 10 euro and that, on leaving the country, the ‘Turisticka Propusnica’ tourist pass issued
simply had to be handed back to the police without further evidence having to be provided?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that the rules changed in 2003 and that people in transit first have to
pay an amount of EUR 33 to a bank (for instance the Vojvodina Bank at Šid railway station at the Croatian
border) and then take the receipt to the border police office where evidence of payment is issued and a
visa is stuck into the passport and stamped?

Does the Commission know the reasons for this significant price increase and much more time-
3.
consuming procedure? Is it a levy to meet the costs of war damage caused in 1999,
is it a sign of
deteriorating relations with the outside world, or is it a response to new visa requirements imposed by the
EU or its Member States?

How long does the Commission expect this exceptional situation to continue? Are discussions taking
4.
place between the EU and the governments of Serbia or Serbia-Montenegro on these visa regulations and
the way in which they are implemented? If not, why not?

Does the Commission not consider that the EU has an interest in facilitating transit travel by
5.
individuals through Serbia, in view of the fact that road and rail connections between the current and
future EU Member States cross Serbia?

6. What action can the Commission take to reduce the long waiting times for international trains and
the need for passengers to disembark at Serbia’s external borders at stations such as Šid, Subotica,
Dimitrovgrad and Presˇevos?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The Commission is very pleased to inform the Honourable Member that the Council of Ministers of Serbia
and Montenegro (SCG) has recently decided to grant to Union citizens, citizens of other states of the
former Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and of states in the Schengen white list the right
to visa free access to SCG.