WRITTEN QUESTION E-2531/03 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Carpetbaggers and thieves in Kosovo.
Date: 2003-07-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EU financing, Kosovo, electrical energy, energy supply, fraud, power plant, support policy, television, use of aid

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/91

propagating material for further multiplication on their own farm (cid:1) see Article 11 of Directive 98/44/EC
of the Parliament and the Council of 6 July 1998 on the protection of biotechnological inventions (1)). This
list is not limitative.

Article 30 has been interpreted by a panel under the dispute settlement provisions of the World Trade
Organisation in the case ‘Canada (cid:1) Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products’
(WT/DS114/R of
17 March 2000). The panel came to the conclusion that the Canadian ‘regulatory review exemption’
(Bolar provision) meets the three conditions of Article 30 of the TRIPs Agreement, but found that the
so-called ‘stockpile exemption’ (allowing companies to produce and stockpile patented pharmaceuticals
during the patent term in view of selling them immediately after expiration of the patent) does not meet
these criteria. In particular, the panel found that the absence of any limitation upon the quantity of the
production during the patent term resulted in a substantial curtailment of the exclusive rights of the patent
holders. Therefore, the panel concluded that it could not be considered as a ‘limited exception’ within the
meaning of Article 30 of the TRIPs Agreement. Although this panel report was not reviewed by the
Appellate Body and has no binding precedential value, it provides useful guidance to the interpretation of
Article 30 of the TRIPs Agreement.

The Commission takes the view that, as drafted, Amendment 196 of the Parliament’s proposal amending
the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, provides no guarantee that the
proposed exception would meet any of the three criteria. For example, the proposal does not provide any
mechanism to ensure that the exception would indeed be applied only for manufacturing those products
needed by countries without manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector. Likewise, it does not
contain any condition to ensure that these products would indeed be exported only to the countries in
need and to prevent diversion to other markets.

Moreover, the Commission takes the view that, since ongoing work in the World Trade Organisation to
address
sector
the problems of countries without manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical
(cf. paragraph 6 of the WTO Doha Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health) is based on
Article 31 of the TRIPs Agreement, it is inappropriate to implement, at Union level, a mechanism based on
another provision of
the Draft Decision of 30 December 2002
Indeed,
implementing paragraph 6 of the WTO Doha Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health (the
so called ‘Perez Motta text’) provides for a system based on the granting of compulsory licences for export
(i.e. Article 31 of the TRIPs Agreement) rather than through the introduction of a general exception on the
basis of Article 30 of the TRIPs Agreement. This Draft Decision was endorsed by all Members of the WTO,
with the exception of the United States, and the Commission is working hard to ensure that it can be
formally adopted by all WTO Members by the Ministerial Conference of Cancun (September 2003).

the TRIPs Agreement.

Finally, the Commission takes the view that any mechanism concerned with the relationship between the
exercise of patent rights and the export of medicines to certain categories of third countries would in effect
involve a partial harmonisation of patent law within the Union and would therefore not have its proper
place in the present directive, which is concerned with placing on the market medicinal products within
the Union.

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.

(2004/C 88 E/0098)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2531/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Carpetbaggers and thieves in Kosovo

In an article entitled ‘Profiteure und Räuber im Kosovo’ (Carpetbaggers and thieves in Kosovo) published in
the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on 14 July 2003, Agron Bajrami criticises UN press policy in that
country. Mr Bajrami
is the deputy editor-in-chief of ‘Koha Ditoure’, the biggest newspaper in Kosovo.
He argues that the UN administration is, to a quite inappropriate extent, supporting ‘Radio Television
Kosovo’ so as to ‘buy’ positive press coverage. One of the accusations made by Mr Bajrami is that the
salaries of managers of ‘Radio Television Kosovo’ are several times higher than ministers’ salaries.

C 88 E/92

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Can the Commission confirm these accusations?

Can it say to what extent support for Radio Television Kosovo is being paid for with Community budget
resources?

‘Die Zeit’ of 10 July 2003 carries a report about scandalous conditions at power plants of the Kosovo
Energy Company (KEK). Over EUR 400 million have apparently been spent on these run-down power
plants since 1999. It is claimed that reconstruction companies, including a German one, have performed
substandard work and used old and useless spare parts. They are supposed to have paid for whole
shipments of oil from Macedonia, even when the tankers arrived half empty.

Can the Commission say to what extent the Kosovo Energy company (KEK) is funded by Community
budget resources?

Can it say what steps it is taking to put an end to the abuses in question?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2003)

There are three Kosovo-wide television stations, one public (RTK) and two private (KTV and TV21).
‘Koha Ditore’, whose owners own also KTV, have shown a keen interest in the debate relating to the status
of RTK as a public and independent broadcaster.

The Organisation on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)-led pillar III of United Nations Interim
Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), set up Radio Television Kosovo (RTK) as an independent
public broadcaster for the development and promotion of democracy. RTK has received awards for its
independent coverage, which seem to be confirmed by RTK’s high audience rates (cid:1) which are estimated at
60-70 % of viewers in Kosovo and almost 100 % in the Diaspora.

As far as the comparison of salaries is concerned, UNMIK has drawn the attention of the Commission to
the following facts. Senior managers of RTK are not bound by legislation and salary ceilings applying to
Kosovo civil servants. The status of RTK’s senior managers is outlined in the Regulation establishing RTK
(Regulation 2001/13 (cid:1) 15 June 2001 on the Establishment of Radio Television Kosovo). The salaries paid
to RTK’s managers are supposed to reflect market conditions, professional requirements and responsibil-
ities. They are also deemed appropriate to safeguard RTK’s editorial independence, which is so important
in Kosovo’s post-conflict situation. In any case, salary costs are not covered by Community assistance.

A number of Member States and international donors, including the Commission through the European
Agency for Reconstruction, have supported the setting up of the RTK, in order to set itself up as a public,
independent and professional broadcaster. RTK is the only TV station broadcasting dedicated minority
programmes.

In the 2002 CARDS annual programme for Kosovo, EUR 1,5 million were allocated to RTK for advisory
support, production of programmes,
training, audience research, direct operational non-salary costs,
purchase of equipment and independent financial auditing.

The Commission can confirm that the situation that the international community found in Kosovo at the
end of the 1999 conflict, which followed over a decade of negligence and under-investment, was extremely
critical, as the public electricity utility KEK and its power plants were close to collapse.

The Kosovo A and B power stations are very old (about 40 and 20 years old respectively) and in 1999
were essentially out of operation. The coal mines were seriously neglected and severely overexploited.
Transmission and distribution networks were hampered by bottlenecks as upgrading of the grid had not
kept pace with industrial and population developments. District heating systems were in a poor state of
repair and operating at a low capacity.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/93

Despite the heavy investment of the Commission and the international community involved in the
electricity sector and KEK, the situation of the Kosovar electricity utility is today still critical, as the
challenges to overcome are still substantial.

The Commission’s support to KEK is implemented through the European Agency for Reconstruction and
amounts to date to about EUR 350 million. From these funds, about EUR 80 million were used for
electricity imports, EUR 35 million were spent for necessary technical assistance, EUR 20-30 million were
used to repair the damage caused by NATO bombing during the conflict (particularly on the transmission
system) and EUR 40 million had to be spent on Kosovo B for the damages caused by the lighting strike
accident and fire in July 2002.

Given the importance of the Community financial support in the electricity sector, the Commission is
following up closely the implementation of the assistance, in close co-operation with the European Agency
for Reconstruction and the Union-led Pillar of the UN Mission in Kosovo.

The Commission is unaware of any substandard work or material of the rehabilitation undertaken by the
European Agency for Reconstruction. The European Agency for Reconstruction has confirmed that all
works are closely supervised by independent technical experts in accordance with international standards
and only new materials are employed. They have also indicated that they are not aware of any evidence
which substantiates allegations about short diesel supply.

(2004/C 88 E/0099)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2542/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(30 July 2003)

Subject: Violation of religious freedom in Russia

Knowing that:

(cid:1) on 15 May 2000 the authorities in Kostroma refused the ‘Family of God’ and another Pentecostal

church authorisation to profess their faith because they allegedly practise hypnotism;

(cid:1) in November 2000 the Kostroma regional justice department requested the closure of two churches,
but did not manage to prove, as required under the 1997 Russian law on religion, that people had
suffered moral or physical harm as a result of hypnosis; According to the law, the harm caused by
hypnosis, rather than the hypnosis itself, must be proven before a religious organisation may be closed
down;

(cid:1) last summer five American citizens working with the Evangelical Christian Church in Kostroma and
an American citizen working in the town with the Christian humanitarian organisation ‘Children’s
Hope Chest’ were refused visas, the pastor Bill Norton, who used to visit the Kostroma ‘Family of God’
church, was refused entry three times,

(cid:1) and in June the justice department of Kostroma near Moscow ordered a check on the ‘Family of God’

church.

In view of the excellent cooperation relationship between the European Union and Russia,

can the Commission say whether it is aware of the facts outlined above?

and what measures, in the context of cooperation relations, might constitute a serious and effective means
of inducing Russia to respect religious freedom, as envisaged in the Constitution and the Federal law on
religion?