WRITTEN QUESTION E-1119/00 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Imprisonment of Arkin Birdal and the judgment against Necmettin Erkaban in Turkey.
C 46 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 (2001/C 46 E/136) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1117/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission Subject: Competition in the Spanish electricity sector (11 April 2000) In view of the announcement that the HidrocantÆbrico shares are to be offered for sale on the open market and given that approval for such an operation is likely to be forthcoming, competition in the Spanish electricity sector is set to decrease, as it has been doing repeatedly on account of operations such as the merger of the Endesa, Fecsa and Sevillana de Electricidad companies. Does the Commission consider the costs of the changeover to a competitive market to be acceptable under such circumstances? Does the Commission believe there to be genuine competition in the Spanish electricity sector? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (24 May 2000) State aid in respect of stranded costs is designed to compensate for commitments or operating guarantees which were given before the entry into force of Parliament and Council Directive 96/92/EC of 19 Decem- ber 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (1) but which may not be honoured on account of that Directive. Compensation, therefore, is for historical costs which become non- competitive following the liberalisation of the electricity market. The costs are determined on a firm-by- firm basis. Consequently, the merger in question should not, in principle, have any impact on the analysis of the compatibility of stranded costs in the light of the EC Treaty rules on state aid. At this point, the Commission cannot say how competitive the Spanish electrical market is following the operation referred to by the Honourable Member before it has been examined under the rules applicable. It will conduct such an examination only if the operation has a Community dimension within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (2). Otherwise, it is for the national authorities to vet the operation. (1) OJ L 27, 30. 1. 1997. (2) OJ L 395, 30. 12. 1989, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 (OJ L 180, 9. 7. 1997). (2001/C 46 E/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1119/00 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council (13 April 2000) Subject: Imprisonment of Arkin Birdal and the judgment against Necmettin Erkaban in Turkey On Tuesday 28 March 200 the Public Prosecutor in Ankara refused to suspend the prison sentence against Arkin Birdal, a renowned and courageous defender of civil rights in Turkey accused of making ásubversive speechesí. His lawyers had requested a six monthsí suspension of the sentence because he needs intensive medical treatment for injuries sustained as a result of an attempt made on his life. At the beginning of March the former Prime Minister Necmettin Erkaban was sentenced to a yearís imprisonment for similar offences, because of a speech he made in 1994. 1. Does the Council not consider that these blatant violations of freedom of expression and human rights are at odds with the commitments entered into by the Turkish Government with a view to EU membership and the basic conditions for the accession of new States, such as respect for the founding principles of the Union, sanctioned in Article 6(1) of the TEU, and the political criteria laid down by the Copenhagen European Council in June 1993? Does the Council not consider that it should prevail upon the Ankara government to put an end to 2. the judicial and other forms of persecution inflicted on Mr Birdal and Mr Erkaban? 13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/127 Reply (10 July 2000) The Council regrets the re-imprisonment of Mr Birdal, which constitutes a serious setback for the freedom of expression in Turkey and is not in accordance with the spirit of the Helsinki conclusions. The Council has urged the Turkish Government to take measures to release Mr Birdal and to ensure adequate medical treatment while he remains in prison. The Council will continue to closely monitor the human rights situation in Turkey and, if necessary, raise individual cases with Turkish authorities. The Council notes that the sentences against Mr Birdal and Mr Erbakan are both founded on Article 312 of the Turkish Penal Code. Article 312 makes it a criminal offence to áincite the people to hatred or hostility on the basis of a distinction between social classes, races, religions, denominations or regionsí. This provision has been interpreted by Turkish courts and other authorities in a way that, in the Councilís view, limits the freedom of expression. The Council notes that Turkey has embarked on a process of reform in this area. The Council welcomes Turkeyís intention to improve the human rights situation and will continue to support and encourage Turkish efforts in this regard. The Council looks forward to further progress in this area. (2001/C 46 E/138) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1121/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (11 April 2000) Subject: White Paper on Food Safety and the European Food Authority The White Paper on Food Safety (COM(1999) 719 final) was published in January 2000. Chapter 4 is concerned with establishing a European Food Authority (EFA). Chapter 5 considers legislation on food safety. The EFA advises, gathers information and communicates, but has no legislative or regulatory powers. In crises the Commission, which will retain responsibility for monitoring, takes measures. The EFA is to cooperate with national bodies and is to play a leading role in this respect. However, it will not have any powers in the event of differences of opinion. Primary European legislation is adopted by the Council and the European Parliament. The Commission and the regulatory committees are responsible for delegated legislation which is based on primary legislation. The EU Treaty does not allow an independent authority, such as the proposed European Food Authority, to have powers of delegated legislation. 1. Does the Commission feel that the EFA should ultimately have the power to enact delegated legislation, for example in respect of authorising novel foods and determining maximum values for residues of pesticides and contaminants? 2. Has the Commission taken action to ensure that the EFA acquires the power of delegated legislation? If so, what initiatives have already been taken and what additional action will the Commission take to ensure that the EFA acquires the power of delegated legislation? If not, is the Commission opposed to the granting of the power of delegated legislation to the EFA and on what grounds?