WRITTEN QUESTION E-0990/04 by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission. The recent clashes between Syrian Kurds and the Syrian authorities (March 2004).
Date: 2004-03-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Kurdistan question, Syria, political unrest

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/555

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

In reply to the Honourable Member’s written question, it may be useful to clarify the objectives of the
Kimberley Process and the role of the Commission within the Kimberley Process.

The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), a multilateral initiative put in place with the backing
of the United Nations to stem the flow of ‘conflict diamonds’, has developed a number of internal
instruments to promote the effective implementation of its requirements by all Participants in the Scheme,
including, notably, the regular reporting of statistics on the trade in, and production of, rough diamonds,
and a system of ‘peer review’ of Participants’
implementation of the Scheme. The Commission, and
specifically Directorate-General (DG) External Relations, representing the Community as a Participant in
the KPCS, has access to the information which is made available in this context to all Participants with a
view to ensuring and enhancing implementation of the Scheme. However, all the information in question
is made available by Participants within the Kimberley Process with the exclusive purpose of ensuring
implementation of the Scheme, and the Community, like all other Participants in the KPCS, is bound by
strict confidentiality provisions concerning the data to which it has access as a Participant.

The Commission, therefore, wishes to emphasize that as DG Competition is in no way concerned with the
implementation of the KPCS (the statistical and monitoring provisions of which concern only aggregated
production data and trade flows between countries as well as implementation of
the Scheme by
Participants, and not actions of particular undertakings), the statistical and other data on implementation
of the KPCS to which the Commission, representing the Community as a Participant in the KPCS, has
access are not made available to DG Competition. The Commission is of the view that using data made
available by Participants in the KPCS for any purpose other than enhancing implementation of the KPCS
would be incompatible with the provisions of the Scheme and undermine the effectiveness of the KPCS as
a crucial tool in the fight against conflict diamonds.

DG Competition is therefore not in a position to have access to or use the sensitive data gathered in this
context for the purposes of considering De Beers’ Supplier of Choice allegedly restrictive practices.
However, should DG Competition consider that the information relating to trading practices of certain
undertakings is necessary to its proper evaluation of the competitive situation in the diamond market, it
certainly can make use of
its investigatory powers in order to collect such information from the
undertakings or organisations concerned.

As already referred to in the Commission’s reply to the Honourable Member’s previous Oral Question
H-0637/03 during question time at Parliament’s November 2003 session (1), DG Competition, after having
authorised the implementation of the Supplier of Choice arrangements by De Beers in January 2003,
committed to look at the diamond market closely, should legal or factual elements come to its attention,
which would affect the view the Commission had taken of the Supplier of Choice arrangements.

Following allegations of a number of companies on the implementation of the Supplier of Choice
arrangements by De Beers, DG Competition has sent a number of requests for information to a variety of
market operators in order to be fully informed of the situation in the market and is in the process of
collecting answers to these requests. Once the answers have been analysed, the Commission will have to
consider the next steps, if any, to be taken.

(1) Oral Reply, 18.11.2003.

(2004/C 88 E/0567)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0990/04

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Subject: The recent clashes between Syrian Kurds and the Syrian authorities (March 2004)

Has the Commission sought information about the recent clashes between Syrian Kurds and the Syrian
army, and what is the Commission’s response to them?

C 88 E/556

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Can the Commission ascertain the causes of the unrest, which led to many deaths, and whether it is due to
the poor relations between the Syrian authorities and the Syrian Kurds?

Will the Commission raise this issue in the margins of the talks on the association agreement between
Syria and the EU?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission through its Delegation in Damascus and together with Member States Embassies has
sought to obtain as clear and complete a picture as possible of the events in the week following 12 March
2004. The local EU Troika met with the Syrian Foreign Ministry on 18 March 2004 to seek information
and to express its concern about the situation and underline the importance of respect for human rights.
The Troika expressed the European Union’s continued interest in the matter and requested to be kept
informed about the evolution of the situation.

The Commission does not possess any information that allows it to ascertain the immediate causes that
triggered the widespread violence, apart from the fact that it started with riots related to a football game in
the town of Quamishli. This unrest quickly spread to other towns with a large Kurdish population, leading
to violent reactions and deaths.

As mentioned above, the Commission has raised this matter together with Member States in Damascus as
well as in the course of its contacts with Syrian authorities.

(2004/C 88 E/0568)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0997/04

by Dominique Souchet (NI) to the Commission

Subject: Placing on the market of plant protection products

(31 March 2004)

introduced by Directive
The Community system for
91/414/EEC (1) is chiefly based on a system for evaluating the active substances, with a reporting Member
State being designated for each substance. This evaluation phase involves collecting studies carried out by
plant protection firms themselves and forwarding them to the European Food Safety Authority.

the approval of plant protection products

Does the Commission consider that this one-way evaluation procedure makes it possible to ensure that the
decision to approve a substance is taken in a sufficiently objective manner?

Furthermore, the protocols envisaged in the studies with a view to assessing the degree of toxicity of
substances have not been updated in line with the appearance of new molecules on the market.

Should their specifications not be adjusted to take account of the performance and modes of action of
these new substances, as otherwise it will not be possible to ascertain all the potential toxic effects of a
new molecule?

The process for evaluating active substances is based on a four-stage system corresponding to four lists of
substances.

Given that it is the undertakings concerned that choose which studies are to be carried out as a priority in
each of the stages, does the Commission believe that this is the best system for guaranteeing compliance
with health and environmental requirements?

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.