WRITTEN QUESTION E-3396/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Failure to pay compensation to Italian exiles in former Yugoslavia.
Date: 2003-11-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Croatia, Italy, Slovenia, Yugoslavia, bilateral agreement, bilateral relations, expropriation, forced migration, indemnification

C 88 E/648

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

The Commission is following this case and has been in contact with the Greek and the Egyptian
authorities.

The Commission is prepared to support any further diplomatic effort by Greece or by the Union
Presidency for the transfer on humanitarian grounds of Mr Kastanias to Greece by virtue of the existing
bilateral agreement on the exchange of detainees.

(2004/C 88 E/0664)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3391/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject: Negotiations between Turkey and the Commission on the case against Leyla Zana

the Turkish daily newspaper Hurriyet mentions
A recent article by the Brussels correspondent of
negotiations between Turkey and the European Commission based on the Turkish proposal
for a
favourable judgment in the case against Leyla Zana in exchange for the inclusion of KADEK on Europe’s
list of terrorist organisations.

Can the Commission either confirm this report or officially deny it?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the article referred to has no basis in
fact. There are no negotiations between the Commission and the Turkish Government on the subjects
mentioned in the question.

The Commission provided its assessment of the ongoing re-trial in the Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Dogan case
in its 2003 Regular Report, which was published on 5 November 2003 (1), and will continue to monitor
this closely.

(1) COM(2003) 676 final.

(2004/C 88 E/0665)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3396/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject: Failure to pay compensation to Italian exiles in former Yugoslavia

The cultural association ‘Movimento nazionale Istria Fiume Dalmazia’ has for many years now been
campaigning for recognition of the rights of the 350 000 Italian exiles who were obliged to leave
Yugoslavia for historical reasons that are sufficiently well known.

Two agreements were concluded, at Osimo in 1975 and Rome in 1983, recognising the right to fair
compensation of the Italian exiles who had been obliged to abandon their entire property. However, with
the break-up of Yugoslavia, the successor states, Slovenia and Croatia, have failed to pay the agreed
instalments. According to a recent study by the technical commission set up by Trieste province in
cooperation with Rome province and the Trieste city council, the 1983 agreements need to be revised in
order to put an end to the exclusion of foreign citizens under the ‘denationalisation’ laws and remove the
bureaucratic obstacles to the purchase of property in Slovenia.

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.