WRITTEN QUESTION E-2574/03 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission. Violation of international directives by a Dutch company in the DRC.
Date: 2003-08-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Netherlands, OECD, UNO, international law, management of resources, mining operation, multinational enterprise, trade restriction, war

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/99

In line with the Council conclusions of 17 June 2002, the Commission has confirmed that the resumption
of development co-operation would only take place when a peace agreement for the Sudanese civil conflict
is signed.

No agreement was initialled on 10 December 2002 with the Government of Sudan. On that date an Union
Troika was in Khartoum during which the normalisation of Union/Sudan relations was linked to the
signature of a peace agreement. The Union considers that the continuation of the civil conflict and the
violations of human rights constitute the main obstacles to social and economic development in Sudan.

The Commission considers that only a Government formed through a comprehensive and just peace
process ‘can ensure peace, prosperity and security in Sudan’.

The Commission has always participated in Union initiatives on Sudan in international fora, in particular
in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Commission will continue to pursue this policy.

(2004/C 88 E/0104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2574/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: Violation of international directives by a Dutch company in the DRC

Has the Commission been following the reports about the involvement of the Dutch Chemie

1.
Pharmacie Holland (CPH) Company in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

Is it true that CPH has paid hundreds of thousands of euros to the Rassemblement Congolais pour la
2.
Démocratie (RCD) in Goma? If so, when did the Commission become aware of the payments and what is
its view thereof?

If the accusations are well-founded, will the Commission take measures against CPH and, possibly,

3.
other companies, as called for, ‘inter alia’ , by the UN Expert Panel?

4.
In connection with the UN, is the Commission prepared to call for a moratorium in the coltan trade
until contacts can be established with a transitional government and strict agreements concluded? If not,
why not?

5.
By analogy with the Kimberley Procedure with regard to the diamond trade, is the Commission
prepared to initiate an inquiry into certification procedures for coltan and other raw materials which
would make it impossible for the conflict in the DRC to be financed from trade in raw materials? What is
the Commission’s view of the UN Expert Panel’s recommendation that a permanent body be set up to
monitor raw materials involved in the conflict?

Given the involvement of Rwanda, a signatory to the Cotonou Agreement, in trade in coltan from
6.
the DRC, is the Commission prepared to make urgent representations to the Rwandan Government for it
to set up a Commission, like the Porter Commission in Uganda, to inquire into the involvement of Rwanda
and Rwandan citizens in the plunder of raw materials in the DRC?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2003)

1. to 3.
The Commission follows, to the extent possible, individual cases relating to the ‘Report of Illegal
Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)’. However, the follow-up is
the responsibility of individual countries. Comments on cases being pursued by national authorities are not
appropriate while investigations are taking place.

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?