WRITTEN QUESTION E-2764/03 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Council. National land register in Turkey and property on the island of Imvros.
Date: 2003-09-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Türkiye, accession to the European Union, human rights, land register, ownership

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/37

of the application for the name’Mejillones de Galicia‘to be registered has already been the subject of several
working meetings of the Scientific Committee, which has also asked for further information … The next
meeting will take place in early January 2003’.

Can the Commission say what progress has been made in the PDO approval and registration

1.
procedure?

2.

Can it explain the reasons for the delay and the possible obstacles to approval?

3. What steps has the Commission taken or will it take to facilitate and speed up approval of the PDO
for Galician mussels? When does it think that the approval and registration procedure will be completed?

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 167.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

The application for the name Mejillón de Galicia to be registered as a protected designation of origin
(PDO) was submitted on 19 February 2001. The application referred to a specification including two types
of presentation: fresh mussels and processed mussels (heat-treated and then frozen or chilled).

The file received did not contain all the information needed to show that all the requirements for
registration stipulated in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of
geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1) were met.

The Commission asked for further information in order to be able to assess the validity of the application.
to dispel the doubts on certain points, the Scientific
Since the replies received were not sufficient
indications (PGIs) and
Committee for protected designations of origin (PDOs), protected geographical
traditional specialities guaranteed (TSGs) was asked to give an opinion.

In April 2003 the Committee concluded that heat
treatment and freezing alter the physical and
organoleptic characteristics of the fresh product and sever the link between the quality of the fresh product
and the geographical area of production. Thus the treatments described are not compatible with the
designation of origin concept. The Committee therefore found against registration of the name Mejillón de
Galicia as a protected designation of origin with a specification including presentation in processed form
(‘procesada’). But
the name with a specification restricted to the fresh
presentation.

it endorsed registration of

Given the Committee’s opinion, the fact that more than one quality label exists (protected designation of
origin and protected geographical indication) and the reputation enjoyed by Galician mussels, the Spanish
authorities have been invited to discuss with the Commission’s officials what is the best solution for the
application.

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.

(2004/C 84 E/0041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2764/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(16 September 2003)

Subject: National land register in Turkey and property on the island of Imvros

According to the Imvros Association of Athens, the implementation of the Turkish national land register
on Imvros has led to the loss of most of Greek property on the island which has been arbitrarily registered
as belonging to the Turkish State. According to the results of the land register carried out in June 2003,

C 84 E/38

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

100 % of the uncultivated land in the village of Agridia on Imvros which is a purely Greek village has been
registered as belonging to the Turkish State, although Greeks hold legal property titles to this land. Bearing
in mind a previous statement by the Council that Turkish-EU relations must be based on a clear
commitment to respect law and international agreements, and given that the Treaty of Lausanne provides
for self-rule for the Greek inhabitants of Imvros and Tenedos and in particular for respect for their
language, religion and property and that Turkey is a candidate country, will the Council say how it intends
to intervene with the Turkish authorities to guarantee the protection of the property of Greek on Imvros?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

The Council

1.
Moslem minorities as regards the protection of persons and property.

is well aware that under the Lausanne treaty Turkey has obligations towards non-

2.
The Council expects all countries aspiring to EU membership to respect international law and their
treaty obligations, in particular in the field of human rights. Moreover, Turkey should ensure full and
effective implementation of reforms to ensure that Turkish citizens can enjoy human rights and
fundamental freedoms in line with European standards including civil and property rights. This is being
constantly made clear to Turkey and is also reflected in the revised Turkey accession partnership by the
relevant priority, requesting Turkey to ‘comply with the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’.

3.
The Council is keeping the matter under close review and will continue to make this point. The
Commission’s regular report for 2003 on Turkey’s progress in the accession process, (November 2003),
[will give] a full assessment of the State of Turkey’s compliance with membership requirements. Human
rights (cid:1) including the implementation aspect (cid:1) will feature prominently in this report.

Specific action in respect of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member is not being considered

4.
at this stage.

(2004/C 84 E/0042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2778/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 September 2003)

Subject: Criteria for

the assignment and removal of special adviser

status for officials and their

disappearance from the Commission’s establishment plan

1.
On the basis of what criteria are Commission officials who are temporarily suspended from their
posts assigned the status of ‘special adviser’, ‘chief adviser’ or ‘adviser hors classe’ in the establishment plan
of DG Admin?

2.
On the basis of what criteria do Commission officials disappear from the establishment plan referred
to at 1? Does this mean that they have now been appointed to another, more permanent post? Or may it
also mean that they are going to be dismissed?

3.
Inter alia in the light of the problems at Eurostat and previous reports of undesirable developments
in the management of EU funds, does the Commission consider it desirable that the officials to whom such
status has been assigned and who possess financial know-how should remain available to serve the EU, at
least so long as they have not committed fraud but on the contrary have demonstrated their aversion to
that offence?

4.
In this context, what significance is to be attached to the fact the Commission’s former chief
accounting officer, Mrs Marta Andreasen, no longer figures in this establishment plan? When was she
removed from it, for how long and why?