WRITTEN QUESTION E-2564/03 by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission. The Polish authorities' violation of the general principles of Community law.
Date: 2003-08-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, Poland, application of EU law, children's rights, custody, enforcement of ruling, illegal restraint, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, rights of access

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/177

Moreover, to further the freedom of expression the Commission is currently setting up a support and
training programme for the Tunisian media (2.15 EUR).

(1) COM(2003) 271 final.

(2004/C 65 E/193)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2555/03

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject: Cross-channel ferry operators

The Commission has previously been questioned on the suggested cartel pricing practices of the cross-
channel ferry companies and Eurotunnel (P-3419/00 (1)). In his response, Commissioner Monti expressed
concern that there should be ‘effective competition between cross-channel operators’.

Several constituents have contacted me to suggest that there is effectively a cartel operating between the
ferry companies and Eurotunnel. For example, although various prices are quoted, GBP 300 appears to be
the cost of crossings for five-day returns for summer trips. They feel they are comparatively paying more
for this particular route than other ferry crossings in the EU (offered by Greek and Italian ferry companies).
More information can be found on a website that has been established by those unhappy with these
companies, http://www.channelpirates.com

Could the Commission comment on the pricing practices of
operators, and whether it believes the companies are operating in an anti-competitive way?

the ferry companies and Eurotunnel

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 164.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2003)

The Honourable Member may know that
the Commission has recently carried out simultaneous
unannounced inspections at the premises of a number of operators of cross-Channel transport services (1).
The purpose of these inspections was indeed to ascertain whether these companies are inter alia fixing
prices and trade conditions for cross-Channel transport services, as suggested by the information referred
to by the Honourable Member.

Such surprise inspections are a preliminary step in investigations into suspected cartels. As the Honourable
Member will understand, the Commission can at this early stage of the investigation not make any further
comments on the case.

(1)

IP/03/168 of 3 September 2003; Spokeperson’s Statement on inspections in cross-Channel transport services.

(2004/C 65 E/194)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2564/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject: The Polish authorities’ violation of the general principles of Community law

In August 1999 Karolina Paetz, holding dual Italian and Polish nationality and married to Paolo Pozza, an
Italian citizen, decided not to return to Italy, keeping with her her daughters Federica and Annamaria
Pozza, aged 2 and 7 respectively, both of whom have Italian nationality.

C 65 E/178

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

The Minors’ Court in Venice issued two judgments awarding custody to the father Paolo Pozza. The court
in Poznan subsequently also issued 19 judgments in favour of the father, establishing that the children
should return to Italy and repeatedly stressing the father’s right to visit them, which Karolina Paetz has
never allowed.

The children’s return to Italy is each time thwarted by information, probably leaked by the Polish
authorities, telling Ms Paetz the date laid down by the courts and enabling her to avoid complying with the
injunction.

Does the Commission not consider that Poland (cid:1) a signatory to the Hague Convention on the repatriation
of minors and the Luxembourg Convention on the recognition and enforcement of decisions issued in
other countries (cid:1) is in this case committing a serious violation of universally accepted legal provisions and
thereby a serious infringement of the general principles of Community law and human rights?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2003)

The Commission is aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member concerning the difficulties to
enforce decisions ordering the return of wrongfully removed or
the
Commission informs the Honourable Member that neither the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980
on the civil aspects of international child abduction, nor the Luxembourg Convention of 20 May 1980 on
Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and on Restoration of Custody
of Children is part of Community law. The Commission is therefore not competent for their monitoring or
implementation.

retained children. However,

Children’s rights to maintain regular contacts with their parents is enshrined in Article 24 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the Union, which in turn has drawn inspiration from the 1989 United Nations
Convention on the rights of the child. However, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is not applicable in the
present case, as it is limited to the application of Community law.

There is currently no Community legislation on the issue of child abduction. However, the Commission
would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the draft Regulation on the jurisdiction,
recognition and enforcement of judgements in matters of parental responsibility (1), which will be adopted
within the next months. One of the main objectives of the future Regulation is to discourage parental child
abduction within the European Community by ensuring that the courts of the Member State of the child’s
habitual residence before the abduction remain competent to take the final decision on custody. It will also
complement and reinforce the application of the 1980 Hague Convention on international child abduction
within the Community by imposing strict procedural rules to ensure the speedy return of the child.

(1) OJ C 203 E, 27.8.2002.

(2004/C 65 E/195)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2577/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: Reaction on the addition of glucose and carbon to slurry with a view to protecting agricultural

soils against pollution and gaseous ammonia emissions

1.
Is the Commission aware that a group of 100 stockbreeders in the Netherlands are adding a mixture
of glucose and carbon called ‘FIR’ to the animal manure produced on their farms with a view to turning
the slurry which they regard as toxic into a substance which may be used to fertilise their land without
excessive emissions of gaseous ammonia into the atmosphere?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that these farmers take the view that the method, in use since the early
1990s, of injecting slurry into the soil to prevent the emission of gaseous ammonia into the atmosphere
results in the destruction of soil life in peat grazing areas so that earthworms no longer excrete a substance
which promotes the intake of phosphates in plant roots?