WRITTEN QUESTION P-1154/04 by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Fight against terrorism.
Date: 2004-04-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: CEPOL, EU police cooperation, Europol, exchange of information, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, terrorism

C 88 E/574

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

granted to the Member States for the purpose of implementing monitoring structures expired at the end of
2003, would the Commission answer the following questions:

1. How does the Commission intend to support Portugal, which has the largest EEZ and the largest
number of vessels to monitor, given that Portugal is clearly under-equipped for the purpose, is known
to be in economic recession and is facing severe financial problems?

2. What action is the Commission intending to take in order to support Portugal

in financing the
acquisition and modernisation of ships and vessels used for monitoring purposes, as it has done in the
case of other countries, in particular Ireland?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Last November the Commission proposed that the Community financial aid scheme for the Member States’
fishery policing programmes be extended to 31 December 2005 (1). This extension is specifically geared to
the creation of a fishery policing agency expected to start operating in 2006.

Article 4(1)(h) of the proposal for a Council Decision provides for assistance towards the cost of buying
and modernising vessels and aircraft for use in inspection and surveillance of fishing activities. The Council
should be adopting the text shortly.

Applications for the funding of programmes for 2004 are to be submitted by 1 June.

(1) COM(2003) 706 final, 20.11.2003.

(2004/C 88 E/0587)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1154/04

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject: Fight against terrorism

The Madrid attacks have once again proved the rule that Europe requires crises, or even tragedies, in order
to make progress. After months of futile procrastination, it has finally been recognised that Europe needs a
constitution in order to provide the EU with the means of protecting itself against those who threaten it,
and in order to create the common area of freedom and security for which the citizens have long called.

Priority should however not be given to expanding existing bodies or increasing bureaucracy, as some
have suggested, but to the question of whether governments are determined to make use of European
structures to develop police and judicial cooperation. Although Europol and Eurojust have already been set
up for this purpose, they are used infrequently and inefficiently. More seriously, the report by the Council
Secretariat on the plan of action to combat terrorism shows that the main obstacle to efficient cooperation
is of a political nature, namely mistrust. It is unacceptable that terrorists should be able to operate without
borders while this is impossible for the police, judicial and intelligence services, even within the European
Union.

What is the Commission’s position with regard to this ‘culture of secrecy’?

Have measures been taken to correct the shortcomings exposed in the above-mentioned report by the
Council Secretariat and, if so, what measures have been taken?

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/575

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member on the fact that the difficulty to share
information between many intelligence and law enforcement services amongst the Member States is one of
the main obstacles to international police co-operation. This practice has a direct negative impact on the
efforts to counter terrorism.

Gathering and processing information is essential to prevent, detect and investigate terrorism. The success
of prevention,
investigation and the subsequent prosecution of crimes depends on the quality of the
information gathered, on its analysis, and especially on protecting it from leakage to unauthorised persons
or organisations. This explains the natural difficulty to share information.

Council Decision 2003/48/JHA of 19 December 2002 on the implementation of specific measures for
police and judicial cooperation to combat terrorism in accordance with Art 4 of Common Position 2001/
931/CFSP is a major step forward for the improvement of exchange of information.

Such difficulties are not only evident in international contacts, but also between different police forces
within countries (and sometimes even within one same force). The level of exchange of information grows
over time as a result of continuing and deepening co-operation within the formal bodies established by the
Union, such as Council working groups, Europol, Eurojust or the Task Force of Police Chiefs. This natural
process is very slow in developing, however. It is therefore necessary to find ways to achieve progress
more rapidly.

Effective ways to build up a culture of trust and co-operation are the training activities of the European
Police College (CEPOL) and the Europol awareness program, as well as incorporating intelligence / security
services in the activities carried out by Europol.

The Commission has recently presented concrete measures that may help to correct
the situation
mentioned, such as a Communication (1) on measures to be taken to combat terrorism and other forms of
serious crime, in particular to improve exchange of information. The Commission has also presented a
proposal for Council Decision on the exchange of information and cooperation concerning terrorist
offences (1).

(1) COM(2004) 221 final.

(2004/C 88 E/0588)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1155/04

by Marco Formentini (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 2004)

Subject: Request for the Commission to intervene in the dispute between the company Invesmart bv and

the Czech Republic regarding the bankrupt Union Banka

Under the conditions for entry into the European Union the accession countries were supposed to bring
their national legal systems and administrative procedures, and the behaviour of public administration into
line with the legal principles observed within the Union. The aim of this question is to highlight a series of
abuses and instances of wrongful treatment suffered since December 2002 by the Dutch firm Invesmart bv
and its majority shareholder Prof. Paolo Catalfamo, an Italian national, as a result of their investing in
Union Banka, which at the time was the fourth largest bank in the Czech Republic.

The investment, as well as the broad restructuring plan accompanying it, were agreed by the investors with
the Czech Central Bank and the Minister of Finance. After the investors had spent a year and a half
fulfilling various difficult obligations the Czech authorities suddenly (and improvidently) declared the bank
bankrupt, which seriously damaged investors. These events were widely publicised both in the Czech
Republic itself and in the international economic press.