WRITTEN QUESTION E-2452/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Growing American pressure on future EU Member States to permanently cease their cooperation with the International Criminal Court.
Date: 2003-07-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, International Criminal Court, United States, financial aid, judicial cooperation, military cooperation, suspension of aid

C 78 E/740

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The Commission does not see any distortions having occurred among beneficiaries. The fact that the
weakest ACP competitors have so far received higher support is in line with the SFA policy choice, namely
to help more the less competitive ACP suppliers. As of 2004, in accordance with the provisions in force, a
reduction coefficient will have to be applied to all beneficiaries, but the reduction will be lower for those
ACPs having improved their competitiveness, and will be proportional to those improvements.

None of the beneficiaries has ever disputed the correctness of the calculations leading to the individual
yearly amounts. Even the representatives of the Ivorian producers stated at the above mentioned meeting
that
in their view the Commission has always applied the method prescribed by the Commission
Regulation in a correct and fair manner.

(1) The Comext database, accessible to Parliament, contains this data.

(2004/C 78 E/0789)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2452/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(23 July 2003)

Subject: Growing American pressure on future EU Member States to permanently cease their cooperation

with the International Criminal Court

1.
Has the Council heard that, under US legislation, as from 1 July 2003 no financial assistance will be
provided to the approximately 50 States which have ratified the Statute of the International Criminal Court
in The Hague?

2.
Is the Council aware that the future EU Member States Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia
and Bulgaria are among the 35 States which have previously received US assistance but in future will only
be able to receive it if they conclude an ‘Article 98 agreement’ promising never to extradite American
citizens to the International Criminal Court in The Hague?

3.
Does the Council regard this new step as an escalation of the United States’ approach, which already
featured the American Service Members Protection Act (dubbed by some the ‘Hague Invasion Act’) and the
agreement signed with the future EU Member State Romania on 1 August 2002 on the exclusion of
Americans?

4.
Does the Council accept that, as a result of this escalation, the Criminal Court will not be able to
operate properly and that those responsible for future war crimes comparable to those committed in the
former Yugoslavia and Rwanda will enjoy permanent immunity from prosecution in cases where no
adequate national prosecution procedure is applied?

5. What will the Council do to prevent further pressure being brought to bear on EU Member States
and future Member States to permanently cease their cooperation with the International Criminal Court,
contrary to the common position adopted by the Council in 2001 and 2002?

Source: De Volkskrant, 2 July 2003.

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council recalls the importance the EU attaches to the preservation of the integrity of the Rome

1.
Statute.

The Council confirms it has received information, both from NGOs and from the third countries
concerned, on renewed heavy US pressure to conclude non-surrender agreements. This pressure consists
mainly in threats to withdraw US military assistance as provided for by the American Service members
Protection Act, the so-called ASPA (effective from 1 July 2003). It was mentioned that such pressure might
also include the decision to withdraw the whole US aid to certain countries. The US authorities have,
however, strongly denied this latter information.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/741

The Council is aware of the consequences of the implementation of the above US decision for the
2.
European countries mentioned by the Honourable MEP. NATO members will not be concerned, but six
future EU Member States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Bulgaria), not expected to join
NATO before 2004, will see important funds withheld as of 1 October. These funds are meant to help
them prepare their nation’s militaries to be fully interoperable with NATO forces.

3.
The Council recalls that at every possible occasion (EU Common Positions, Guiding Principles and
different demarches carried out in third countries) it has reaffirmed its consistent and clear position on the
ASPA and on the bilateral non-surrender agreements. When approached by the US with proposals for
non-surrender agreements, Member States looked for a common EU approach to these proposals within
the Council. Since the very start of the process, the Council identified one clear political objective for this
common approach: the framework for any solution to accommodate US concerns must preserve the
integrity of the Rome Statute and should not undermine the ICC.

Particular reference should be made to the EU Guiding Principles annexed to the Council Conclusions of
30 September 2002. In the above Guiding Principles, the Council considered that entering into bilateral
agreements (cid:1) as presently drafted (cid:1) would be inconsistent with ICC States Parties’ obligations with regard
to the ICC Statute and may be inconsistent with other international agreements to which ICC States Parties
are parties. Furthermore, any solution should include appropriate operative provisions ensuring that
persons who have committed crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the Court do not enjoy impunity.
Such provisions should ensure appropriate investigation and (cid:1) where there is sufficient evidence (cid:1)
prosecution by national jurisdictions concerning persons requested by the ICC. In any case, any solution
should only cover persons who are not nationals of an ICC State Party. It should cover only persons
present on the territory of a requested State because they have been sent by a sending State; and surrender
cannot be deemed to include transit.

It is recalled that the ten acceding countries supported the EU Common Position of June 2003 and that the
associated countries (Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey) as well as the EFTA countries also aligned with it.

(2004/C 78 E/0790)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2464/03

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject: Pricing of basic postal services

European users are often paying unjustified high prices for basic postal services. In particular, this seems to
be the case in Germany, where a stamp costs more than twice its Spanish equivalent for consumers.
It appears that, even though Deutsche Post was obliged by the German Regulator to slightly reduce its
stamp price earlier this year (from EUR 0,56 to 0,55), the price charged by DPWN on a stamp for a basic
letter of 20 grams is still the highest in Western Europe, even taking into consideration elements such as
quality of service and population density.

In February 2000, the DVPT (Deutscher Verband für Post und Telekommunikation e.V.), the German
association for post and telecommunication, filed a complaint with the European Commission (Comp/
37 821) concerning the excessive prices used by Deutsche Post in the reserved letter mail area. DVPT
argued that Deutsche Post used its excessive prices in the reserved area to cross-subsidise other services
and referred to this as a breach of Article 82 of the Treaty (abuse of dominant position).

The Commission has in past years adopted important decisions to redress the abuses perpetrated by some
postal operators. Can the Commission explain what is the current status of the above-mentioned DVPT
case and what steps it intends to take in order to solve it?