WRITTEN QUESTION E-2444/03 by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Council. US naval base in Guantanamo Bay.
Date: 2003-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United States, international human rights law, military base, military court, prison system, prisoner of war, right to justice

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/23

Can the Council provide information on the specific conditions of the Italian agreement and the measures
which are being provided for or will be taken to remedy this injustice against Portuguese farmers?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 amending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the common organisation
of the market in milk and milk products introduced an additional levy scheme in that sector. The scheme
has been extended several
times, notably by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an
additional levy in the milk and milk products sector. All Member States are obliged to comply with their
respective reference quantities and must pay the Community, by way of the additional levy, an amount
corresponding to any excess quantities produced.

The Council Decision of 16 July 2003, establishing the compatibility of the aid which the Italian Republic
intends to grant its milk producers and published (1), lays down the following specific conditions:

(cid:1) the amounts owed to the Community by Italian milk producers by virtue of the additional levy on
milk and milk products for the period 1995/1996 to 2001/2002 to be advanced by the Italian
Government,

(cid:1) deferred payment of the debt by the producers in a number of equal annual instalments, without

interest, over a period not exceeding 14 years.

That specific Decision, based on the third subparagraph of Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, was adopted
unanimously by the members of the Council, on the basis of an assessment of the exceptional nature of
the circumstances which prompted the Italian Government’s request. Application of such a measure in
other cases that might be considered comparable would therefore be a matter for individual assessment by
the Council.

The Council also refers the Honourable Member to the conclusions of the European Council meeting in
Brussels on 16/17 October 2003 and particularly to paragraph 38 of the conclusions in which the
European Council welcomed the Commission’s proposal to prolong the arrangement concerning the
problems linked to the development of milk production in the Azores and invited the Council to examine
it as soon as possible.

(1) OJ L 184, 23.7.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2444/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Council

(22 July 2003)

Subject: US naval base in Guantanamo Bay

With reference to Oral Question H-0036/02 (1) regarding the conditions under which prisoners taken
during the Afghanistan war are being held by the USA in Guantanamo Bay, will the Council please list all
citizens of Member States being held there? Will the Council please clarify whether the conditions under
which those prisoners are being held, and the duration of their incarceration, comply with the terms of the
Geneva Convention on prisoners of war? Will the Council please outline the basis on which the military
tribunals proposed by the USA comply with internationally accepted standards of a fair trial? Will the
Council please indicate what action it is taking to ensure that the US is in full compliance with Geneva
Conventions and what response it is receiving from US authorities in this regard?

(1) Written answer, 6.2.2002.

C 84 E/24

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Reply

(8 March 2004)

The Council is not in a position to provide details of the names, conditions of detention or duration of
detention of Member States’ citizens being held in Guantanamo Bay. As the Council has stated in its reply
to Written Question E-1420/03, the protection of the rights and interests of Member States’ nationals
abroad pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is a matter for the individual Member
States concerned.
It is accordingly for those Member States to take such measures as they consider
necessary to ensure that their citizens’ rights are respected. It is for the government of the USA to ensure
that the detainees are held under conditions which do not violate international law and that any tribunal
established by it complies with internationally accepted standards of a fair trial and with international law.

(2004/C 84 E/0026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2449/03

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject: Conservation of hedgerows

Hedgerow conservation appears very often to be in the general
interest because hedgerows safeguard
biodiversity and inhibit run-off and soil erosion, etc. In France, some départements now grant aid for the
replanting of hedgerows.

However, besides planting there is also the question of upkeep, which in a way is currently a free service
provided by the farmer to the local community.

Does the Commission think it would be possible to offset the cost of this service by introducing assistance
for the annual maintenance of hedgerows?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

Agri-environmental measures are included in the measures provided for in the national rural development
plan for France. The plan contains a list of measures in this area that can be adapted by each region
wishing to implement them. Planting, improving and maintaining hedgerows are listed as measures eligible
for assistance from Community funds. Therefore, aid for the maintenance of hedgerows already exists.

(2004/C 84 E/0027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2455/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject: Eurostat:

‘cash flow audit’ and ‘value for money’ study by way of supplementary measures to

clarify what happened and prevent any recurrence

1.
It has been announced that the Internal Audit Service, under the aegis of the Commission, is to carry
out an investigation into fraud at Eurostat: does this supersede the independent investigation by OLAF, or
will this first investigation be completed as originally planned? What is the difference in status between the
investigations by the Internal Audit Service and OLAF? In what respect might they possibly supplement
each other?