WRITTEN QUESTION E-2902/03 by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Council. Suspension of cooperation agreements and postponement of their signature.
Date: 2003-10-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ACP countries, Cotonou Agreement, cooperation agreement (EU), human rights, protective clause, signature of an agreement, suspension of aid, third country

C 84 E/40

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) products are authorised for
symptoms. Some products are also authorised for the prevention of osteoporosis.

the treatment of menopausal

The increased risk of breast cancer with HRT has been recognised for some time. New data regarding the
risks of breast cancer, as well as data suggesting an increased risk of cardiovascular disease have recently
become available.

A working group on HRT with experts from the Member States, of the Mutual Recognition Facilitation
Group (MRFG) has been updating a European ‘core’ Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) for the last
few years. An SPC has two functions. Firstly it is part of the Marketing Authorisation of a product and
secondly it is a communication document to inform healthcare professionals about a particular product
and how to use it safely. Because most HRT products are authorised nationally a European ‘core’ SPC was
developed. This is used as a template by the Member States as the basis for the national HRT SPCs. The
European ‘core’ SPC contains clear warnings about the risks of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease.
Hence these warnings appear in national SPCs. The HRT Working Group of the MRFG meets at the
European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) and takes advice from the Committee
for Proprietary Medicinal Product’s- (CPMP) Pharmacovigilance Working Party.

In light of the new data on the risks of HRT, national competent authorities in the Member States have
communicated with healthcare professionals and users of HRT with information about the risks of HRT
therapy. At a European level, the EMEA has made available funds for a new CPMP ad-hoc working group
on HRT. This working group will build on the work already done by the MRFG Working Group and will
advise CPMP what further action, if any, is required to protect the citizens of the Union from the risks of
HRT. In addition, the Community under its three consecutive ‘Europe against Cancer’ programs has helped
to set up a system of cancer surveillance through the European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR) as
well as a large European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition (EPIC), which studies among
522 000 volunteers, of which about 320 000 are women, risk factors for cancer related to diet, lifestyle
and physical activity. This prospective study is also expected to contribute evidence on the relative risks for
breast cancer related to hormone replacement therapy.

(2004/C 84 E/0044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2902/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 October 2003)

Subject: Suspension of cooperation agreements and postponement of their signature

In its answer to my Question E-0520/03 (1) of 13 February 2003 about respect for women’s rights in
Pakistan, the Council has told me that, so far, not one agreement with a third country in which a human
rights clause has been incorporated as an ‘essential element’ has been suspended.

It is true that the EU has in a number of cases where the essential elements of the agreement have been
infringed suspended some provisions of the agreement. This was the case for the financial provisions of
the Cotonou Agreement with Zimbabwe (2002), Comoros (2000), Côte d’Ivoire (2000), Fiji (2000), Haiti
(2000) and Liberia (2001). What infringements of essential elements took place in these six countries?

In the case of Croatia (1995), Pakistan (1999), Algeria (1998) and Russia (1995) the signature of the
cooperation agreements was postponed because of concern about human rights.
is of
course a broad term. What kind of infringements of human rights were involved in this case in these four
countries?

‘Human rights’

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 62.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/41

Reply

(8 March 2004)

The Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to refer to the relevant Council Decisions where
1.
are explained the grounds on which the EU decided to suspend certain provisions of the Cotonou
Agreement with Zimbabwe (2002), Comoros (2000), Côte d’Ivoire (2000), Fiji (2000), Haiti (2000) and
Liberia (2001). The Council always officially informs the President of the European Parliament in writing of
Council Decisions to start and end consultations under the Cotonou Agreement.

2.

The Honorary Member can find the exact text of these decisions in the following documents:

(cid:1) Council Decision of 18 February 2002 concluding consultations with Zimbabwe under Article 96 of

the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement,

(cid:1) Council Decision of 14 February 2000 concluding consultations with the Comoros under Article 366a

of the Lomé Convention and taking appropriate measures,

(cid:1) Council Decision of 25 June 2001 concluding consultations with Côte d’Ivoire under Article 96 of the

ACP-EC Partnership Agreement

(cid:1) Council Decision of 9 April 2001 concluding consultations with the Republic of the Fiji Islands under

Article 96 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement,

(cid:1) Council Decision of 29 January 2001 concluding the consultation procedure with Haiti under

Article 96 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement,

(cid:1) Council Decision of 25 March 2002 concluding consultations with Liberia under Articles 96 and 97 of

the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement.

3.
For the other cases mentioned by the Honourable Parliamentarian, the Council recalls that the
European Parliament shared the Council concern about human rights. This concern was at the original of
the delay in the signature of the co-operation agreements.

4.
The Council underlines that when speaking of the promotion and protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms, the Union refers to a well identified set of obligations which allows action not only
at general level but also with reference to specific or individual cases, whenever requested and possible.

(2004/C 84 E/0045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2942/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Multiannual Guideline Programme (MGP): cutting the size of the Community fishing fleet

Each Community Member State has a multiannual guideline programme establishing the objectives to be
met in cutting down its fishing fleet, so as to suit the fishing effort to existing resources. In December
1997, the fourth generation of MGPs was adopted, establishing the objectives for 1997-2001. This period
was extended to the end of 2002. From 1 July 2002, subsidies for building fishing boats are no longer
possible in those segments of MGP IV failing to respect their objectives by that date.

Now that the MGPs are no longer in force, can the Commission provide details of those Member States
which have not yet met the objectives laid down in these programmes, in all fleet segments, specifying the
extent to which each Member State has met the objectives?