WRITTEN QUESTION E-2579/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Confiscation of euro bank notes belonging to, and robbery of, families of Turkish origin from EU Member States during their annual journey home through Bulgaria.
Date: 2003-08-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bulgaria, EU national, accession to the European Union, corruption, customs profession, exchange restriction, police checks, transit

C 88 E/100

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

The Commission notes that the report of the United Nations (UN) Panel stated that a number of
companies operating in DRC had failed to adhere to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The OECD Guidelines contain voluntary
principles and standards for responsible business conduct in areas including human rights, disclosure of
information and anti-corruption. The Commission strongly supports the Guidelines as a key corporate
responsibility instrument with global reach. National Contact Points in each adhering country handle
enquiries relating to the Guidelines and cases of alleged non-adherence. The Commission considers that
allegations of conduct inconsistent with the OECD Guidelines should be addressed to the relevant National
Contact Point, which will investigate accordingly.

4. and 5.
The Commission has discussed with the Panel (which is finalising its final report for October
2003) the coltan moratorium proposal and they consider it is not possible to implement and that
comparison with the Kimberley process is not appropriate. The Panel is not going to propose such a
moratorium.

The Transitional Government in DRC has not yet established full and effective control over its vast
territory. However, the United Nations Organisation Mission in the (MONUC) forces are now present in
large parts of Eastern Congo and with the warring parties’ agreement on the Army establishment, it is only
a question of time before effective control is established.

It is the Commission’s view that a permanent body might have been appropriate at an earlier stage of the
conflict. However, it is now for the Transitional Government to take appropriate measures to control the
exploitation of raw materials in the country.

6.
The Commission would point out that while several persons and bodies in Uganda were named by
the Panel, only one name (cid:1) albeit an important army person (cid:1) was named in the Panel’s report on
Rwanda. Thus the situation is not the same. It is the Commission’s understanding that this issue may be
taken up in the Panel’s report to the Security Council foreseen for October 2003

(2004/C 88 E/0105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2579/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: Confiscation of euro bank notes belonging to, and robbery of, families of Turkish origin from EU

Member States during their annual journey home through Bulgaria

Is the Commission aware that, for several decades now, a large number of families of Turkish origin
1.
from Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria and other EU Member States have been
returning each summer to their native land to spend their holidays and visit families, many of them
travelling by train or car?

2.
Has the Commission been informed that the section of their journey which necessarily crosses
Bulgaria has become increasingly difficult, with families of Turkish origin being hampered by being
required to pay a EUR 100 levy to criminal gangs for ‘obligatory anti-SARS injections’, by thieves disguised
as police officers, by armed robbers and by having to pay enormous fines for allegedly breaking the speed
limit?

3.
Is the Commission aware that people travelling through Bulgaria are surprised that the Bulgarian
police and customs service forbid the carrying of large amounts of money in euros (in excess of the
equivalent of BGL 5 000) through Bulgaria and, consequently, sometimes confiscate thousands of euros per
family in cash?

4. What is the Commission doing to protect residents of EU Member States against these forms of
robbery and extortion in a neighbouring country which hopes to be able to accede to the EU in 2007?

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/101

5. What guarantees can the Commission offer to ensure that such practices will not recur during transit
traffic peak periods in 2004 and thereafter?

Are these problems being addressed in the negotiations with Bulgaria on its future accession to the

6.
EU?

Source:The 18 July 2003 edition of ‘Rotterdams Dagblad’, a Dutch newspaper

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Following a large number of complaints from Union citizens as well as previous parliamentary questions
on this subject (H-0793/01 by Mr Ceyhun during question time at Parliament’s November I, 2001
session (1), P-0437/02 by Mr Ceyhun (2), E-3790/02 by Mr Maaten (3) and P-1139/03 by Mrs Swiebel (4)),
the Commission is well aware that many families of Turkish origin travel regularly via Bulgaria and can
encounter problems related to motorway criminality and corrupt behaviour of police and customs officers.
In the 2002 Regular Report (5), the Commission clearly states that police corruption is perceived to be a
problem and that cases of bribery in the traffic and border police have been raised by Union citizens
driving in and through Bulgaria. At the last meeting of the Union/Bulgaria Association Committee, the
Commission emphasised that Bulgarian Authorities must address the problem. The Commission has
officially transmitted a summary of individual complaints and a recent report by ‘Stichting Inspraakorgaan
Turken in Nederland.’ The problem has also been raised in the framework of the accession negotiations.

The Bulgarian Government has reacted by adopting a national strategy against corruption. As regards
police corruption and false police officers, the government has taken measures to combat motorway
criminality and to prevent unlawful actions of police officers. As regards corruption in the customs
administration, the government is applying sanctions, including dismissals, to implement the new code of
ethics.

Considering that the criteria for membership agreed by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 (21/
22 June 1993) include the guaranteeing of the rule of law, the Commission attaches great importance to
the development of effective and non-discriminatory law enforcement in Bulgaria. The Commission will
continue to monitor Bulgaria’s progress in this area until the date of accession and report to the Parliament
and the Member States.

Please note that the fight against corruption is considered to be a priority for PHARE assistance in Bulgaria
and that four anti-corruption projects were approved in 2002. One of these exclusively covers corruption
within the police forces.

As regards the regime for import and export of currency, it should be noted that Bulgaria achieved a
higher degree of compliance with the ‘acquis’ and best Union practices through the amendments to the
Bulgarian Foreign Exchange Law in June 2003. The declaration regime for import and export of cash
amounts over BGL 5 000 or their equivalent in foreign currency replaced previously existing more
restrictive provisions such as the permission regime for export of cash amounts over BGL 20 000.
Currently for export of cash over BGL 25 000, in addition to the declaration, evidence that the person does
not have liabilities to the Bulgarian State is required. Such evidence is not required for foreign persons
exporting currency that has previously been imported and declared.

(1) Written reply, 13.11.2001.
(2) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002.
(3) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 24.
(4) See page 18.
(5) COM(2002) 700 final.