WRITTEN QUESTION E-0153/04 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Use of the term Chechen network without any proven involvement of Chechens.
Date: 2004-01-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, disinformation, ethnic discrimination, magistrate, terrorism

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/319

(2004/C 84 E/0366)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0149/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: Revenue from denationalisation used to cover current expenditure

The Greek Government holds account number 234 339/0 with the Bank of Greece, into which is paid the
revenue obtained from the denationalisation of public enterprises. Finance Ministry documents put before
the Hellenic Parliament have revealed that between 2001 and 20 September 2003, EUR 3,9 billion was
drawn from that account to cover current government expenditure.

The Finance Ministry documents refer to specific funds for the Olympic Games, the staff insurance fund of
the Greek Telecommunications Organisation (OTE), the Skaramanga shipyards, the Thessaloniki Water
Company, the ‘Bambakos’ organisation, hospitals, and meeting the needs of the Public Company for
Transferable Securities (DEKA), etc.

Under the terms of the relevant regulations, can the revenue from denationalisation be used to cover
current budget expenditure or only to reduce the public debt? What measures does the Commission
propose to take in this matter?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

In the context of the Community budgetary surveillance procedures, government accounts (cid:1) notably the
government deficit/surplus (cid:1) should be compiled according to the rules laid down in the European System
of National and Regional Accounts (ESA95) (1).

According to the ESA95 accounting rules, privatisation proceeds (cid:1) including proceeds from indirect
privatisations (cid:1) are financial receipts (see ESA95 paragraphs 4.165(g) and 5.86). Therefore, such receipts
are not taken into account in the calculation of the general government deficit/surplus. This means that if
an EU government decides to increase expenditure, and finances such spending through a privatisation, its
deficit will increase.

Since the government debt that is relevant for budgetary surveillance procedure is defined in gross terms (2)
(cid:1) that is, without netting government assets such as shares in public enterprises (cid:1) privatisation lead to a
reduction in the government debt level insofar as they reduce the government debt issuance or allow the
government to buy back debt.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in

the Community, OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.

(2) The general government debt is defined in Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 of 22 November
1993 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the
European Community, OJ L 332, 31.12.1993.

(2004/C 84 E/0367)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0153/04

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(27 January 2004)

Subject: Use of the term ‘Chechen network’ without any proven involvement of Chechens

In an increasingly conspicuous manner, judges from EU Member States are using terms which appear to
back up the idea that Chechens are involved in terrorist networks active in the European Union.
In particular, Judge Bruguière has created the term ‘Chechen networks’, which he uses to define any cases
terrorist networks, although such use is
which may have a remote connection with international

C 84 E/320

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

unjustified. In actual fact, the adjective ‘Chechen’ serves only to specify a place (cid:1) generally hypothetical (cid:1)
where apprentice terrorists and European citizens might have chosen to go, or a place (cid:1) also generally
hypothetical (cid:1) where humanitarian aid might have been sent.

What is the Commission’s view of the use of the term ‘Chechen network’ by judges from EU Member
States? In particular, what is its view of the French judge Bruguière’s use of the term to refer to a criminal
case in which Chechens only appear to be involved because the EU citizens (not Chechens) accused in
these cases cited Chechens as possible recipients of financial aid, or Chechnya as a place where they could
carry out their plan for a holy war? Does the Commission not believe that by acting in this way judges
contribute, whether intentionally or not, to the dissemination of false information and to the undermining
of the image and the reputation of a whole people, and that they could therefore be responsible for
growing feelings among EU citizens of racial hatred and intolerance, and even of violence towards
Chechen refugees living in the European Union? Could the Commission ask the European Monitoring
Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in Vienna to carry out a thorough investigation into how widespread
the above practices are, with regard to both the Chechen people and to other peoples, and into the
political, legal and judicial implications that such practices could have?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

The Commission has no knowledge of the matters raised by the Honourable Member and, in any case, it is
not in a position to comment on the assessments and decisions made by judges in the Member States in
the course of their duties.

Nevertheless, the Commission shares the Honourable Member’s view that it is not appropriate to identify
the criminal conduct of individuals with a whole nation.

The Commission takes the view that the investigation requested does not fall within the areas of activity
laid down by Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 establishing a European Monitoring
Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (1).

(1) OJ L 151, 10.6.1997.

(2004/C 84 E/0368)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0155/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Disadvantaging certain categories of passengers through further restrictions on the sale of rail

tickets from the Netherlands to other European destinations

1.
Is the Commission aware that Nederlandse Spoorwegen, a company that, in contrast with railway
companies in other Member States, traditionally does not sell tickets to international destinations at the
usual station ticket offices and which has already reduced the number of its international ticket outlets to
ten in larger towns and cities and at Schiphol Airport, intends to close the remaining outlets in 2005?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that the planned alternatives will be limited to purchasing tickets over
the internet and from machines to a number of destinations in Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Germany
and Switzerland, with the result that passengers travelling to, for example, Spain, Italy, Austria, Poland,
Denmark or the UK will be largely dependent on waiting times during opening hours at foreign stations?

3. What will the consequences be for people living outside the Netherlands who do not possess a
Netherlands bank card but who want to purchase a train ticket for a journey to a destination in another