WRITTEN QUESTION P-3401/03 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. The Loizidou case.
Date: 2003-11-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cyprus, EU relations, European Court of Human Rights, Türkiye, accession to the European Union, indemnification, ownership

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/649

Can the Commission state:

1. whether it believes the above-mentioned agreements to be contrary to Articles 44(2)(e), 49 and 56 of

the EC Treaty;

2. whether it believes those agreements to be contrary to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union,
which expressly refers to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, and, in particular, to Article 14 of that Convention;

3. whether it believes those agreements to be contrary to Articles 17 and 19 of the European Charter of

Fundamental Rights.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

The agreements concluded between Italy and Yugoslavia in 1975 and 1983 are bilateral agreements
between two sovereign states concerning property ownership issues. Slovenia has
informed the
Commission that (cid:1) as one of the successor states of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) (cid:1)
it has taken over obligations as concerns compensations to be paid under the agreement.

The EC Treaty and the Treaty on the European Union do not prejudice systems of property ownership in
the Member States (cid:1) hence property ownership issues are a matter of national legislation. Hence the
principles of the Treaties cannot be applied to property ownership matters.

As concerns the provisions of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Charter concerns Union
institutions and Member States only when they implement Union legislation. As property ownership
regimes are not regulated by Union law, the Charter is not applicable in this area.

(2004/C 88 E/0666)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3401/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 November 2003)

Subject: The Loizidou case

The length of time which has elapsed since the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) passed judgment
in the above case, during which Turkey has failed to comply with the Court’s ruling, is an affront to the
authority of the Court.

Turkey has now set two main conditions for implementing the ruling, viz.

(cid:1) that the Loizidou case does not set a precedent for other cases already pending in the ECHR and that
those cases should first go before the Compensation Committee recently set up by the illegal Denktash
regime, and

(cid:1) that the part of the judgment ruling that Turkey allow Ms Loizidou to enjoy her property in peace

should not be implemented and that only compensation should be paid.

In view of the fact that provision is made under the terms of the enhanced political dialogue between the
EU and Turkey for respect for the judgments of the ECHR and that implementation of the Court’s
judgment in the Loizidou case has in effect been pending since 1996, what steps will the Commission take
to persuade Turkey to implement
repercussion or unacceptable
compromise?

judgment without

the ECHR’s

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2003)

The Commission has been closely following the case of Loizidou against Turkey to which the Honourable
Member refers. As the Commission highlighted in its 2003 Regular Report (1), despite Turkey’s undertaking
in June 2003 to pay by October 2003 the just satisfaction awarded to Mrs Loizidou by the European
Court of Human Rights, no payment has yet been made.

C 88 E/650

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Resolution of this matter is clearly a priority of the Council of Europe Minister’s Deputies, who have been
considering this case frequently in the course of their recent weekly meetings. The Council of Europe has
continued to strongly urge Turkey to pay, without condition, the just satisfaction awarded by the Court.

One of the priorities outlined in the Accession Partnership for Turkey is respect for the judgements of the
European Court of Human Rights. As such, the Commission will continue to closely monitor those
judgements that have not been executed by Turkey, including this case.

(1) COM(2003) 676 final.

(2004/C 88 E/0667)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3467/03

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject: Chad-Cameroon pipeline

Will the Commission give an update on the Chad-Cameroon pipeline project, including benefits that have
come to local communities and protection that has been assured for the affected environment? What is the
expected programme for oil revenues? What are the health and social impacts on the two countries of
increased economic activity associated with the pipeline?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Oil production in Chad began in June 2003 and oil started flowing through the new pipeline in July 2003.
On 9 October 2003 the country’s president, Idriss Deby formally inaugurated the 1 000 km. long Chad-
Cameroon pipeline, in the presence of four other heads of state of the region.

The total cost of extracting the oil from Chad and piping it to Cameroon is estimated at USD 3,7 billion,
one of the largest private sector investments in Africa. The European Investment Bank (EIB) participates in
the financing with a sum of EUR 144 million, of which EUR 35,7 million for the Government of
Cameroon and EUR 20,3 million for Chad from European Development Fund (EDF) risk capital. The
project is expected to produce 225 000 barrels of oil a day, and project revenue as a whole will be USD 12
billion. Expected government revenues are USD 1,7 billion for Chad and USD 505 million for Cameroon
over the 28-year operating period.

The development rationale for this project is that the project will generate revenue that will allow the
governments to invest more in poverty reducing programmes, such as health, education and rural
development.

According to the Revenue Management Law, 85 % of the revenues over the first ten years of production
will be invested in priority social sectors, education, health, social services, and agriculture. These will not
substitute the expenditure of the state in these areas, but represent additional resources.

What makes this project an entirely new kind of extractive industry project is in the detail and care with
which the revenue management programme is formulated and set up. In fact, the World Bank involvement
has supported the development of a sound revenue management programme, triggered the application of
the group’s strict environmental and social policies, and ensured broad consultations in the two countries
and around the world.

As a result, the project will have a minor net effect on the natural and human environments. The pipeline
was buried for most of the route,
it follows existing infrastructure and complies with World Bank
including those on environmental assessments, natural habitats, indigenous peoples,
safeguard policies,