WRITTEN QUESTION E-2099/99 by Gilles Savary (PSE) to the Commission. Al Invest Programme.
18. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 203 E/135 Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1999) The Commission shares the concern of the Honourable Member that the rights of children and young people should be properly observed around the world. The individual case, to which the Honourable Member is referring, has now been settled by the Court. The boy has been released and returned from the United States to Switzerland. It should be recalled that the Community and United States have an open dialogue on issues in the field of freedom, security and justice within the framework of the New transatlantic agenda. In general, this exchange of views includes criminal matters, such as money laundering, corruption and the fight against illegal drugs. The Community and United States have recently jointly organised a conference on combating child pornography on the Internet. The Commission will not hesitate to raise with the appropriate American authorities issues of concern similar to the one put forward by the Honourable Member whenever the need arises. (2000/C 203 E/172) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2099/99 by Gilles Savary (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1999) Subject: Al Invest Programme For the 1995-2000 period the Commission launched an EU-Latin America economic cooperation programme to enable economic operators on both continents and from various sectors to meet and to set up partnerships, particularly in the form of investment projects, distribution agreements, technology transfers, joint ventures and strategic alliances. The Commission has proposed extending the Al Invest programme for a further period (2000-2004) and increasing its funding, and has forwarded such a proposal to the European Parliament. During the programmeís initial period of operation there was evidence that the procedures for making payments to operators were becoming cumbersome. With this in mind and with the aim of identifying ways in which proper account could be taken of operatorsí views and needs, and given that the new Al Invest guide to procedure is currently in preparation at the Commission, would the Commission answer the following questions: ü What arrangements does the Commission intend to make for involving operators in the establishment of procedures for the implementation of the new Al Invest programme? ü To what extent may one look forward to the implementation of procedures for communication and Invest cooperation with operators which are more flexible than was the case during the Al programmeís initial period of operation? Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (6 December 1999) In reply to the first part of the question, the Commission stresses that nothing can replace direct contact with operators. In 1998 (London) and 1999 (Barcelona), meetings were arranged under the name Connect to allow operators to exchange ideas with the Commission for about two days (in addition to direct contact among operators in order to prepare proposals for meetings of firms, which are the main function of Connect). At each of the meetings stock was taken of all the technical, administrative and financial aspects, on which the success of the programme depends. Connect meetings will be arranged in the last three months of every year from 2000 to 2004. Direct, individual contact with operators will also take place, where necessary, by electronic and ordinary mail. There is now also a web site with an Intranet (ámembers onlyí) part reserved for operators (www. al-invest. org). A technical secretariat, which provides support and advice for operators, will be maintained until the end of 2005. C 203 E/136 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18. 7. 2000 In reply to the second part of the question, the Commission stresses that a number of measures will be progressively introduced, starting with the maintenance of a specific standard contract for Al-Invest throughout stage 2 (similar to what was done in stage 1). A full-scale test was launched at the end of 1998 and since then the Commission has also taken the measures needed to ensure that payments are made quickly and regularly. Further improvements could still be made. The technical secretariat pays special attention to the presentation by operators of their technical reports and financial reports, so as to limit requests for additional information and rejections by the Commission. Payment deadlines are now under control. In agreement with operators, the date for presenting proposals for activities will gradually be brought forward by three months so that between receipt of the signed contract and the date on which a sectoral meeting is held there is sufficient time for thorough preparations. These measures were agreed with operators at a number of meetings held this year: European operators (February); Latin American operators (September, Lille); European and Latin American operators (October, Connect ü Barcelona). (June); French operators (2000/C 203 E/173) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2100/99 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Council (9 November 1999) Subject: Infringement of the EU Code of Conduct for arms exports: Germany supplying the Leopard 2 A5 to Turkey In response to my earlier question (E-0436/99) of 10 March 1999 to the German Presidency concerning the role played by human rights violations in arms export recipient states, I received the answer (on 10 June 1999) that respect for human rights was one of the ámain conditions to be met when taking decisionsí and that export licences were not issued if human rights were being violated. In its decision of 13 October 1999 on the enlargement of the EU, the Commission noted that the conditions required for negotiations to start with Turkey did not exist, especially in the sphere of human rights. The German government decided on 20 October 1999 to issue a licence for the export to Turkey of the Leopard 2 A5 tank, which is particularly well suited to use in civil war situations owing to its thermal- imaging devices. 1. Were all EU Member States informed in accordance with the Code of Conduct before the decision was taken on the German governmentís plans to export such equipment? Is the Council of the opinion that Germanyís export plans are compatible with Criterion Two of the Code of Conduct? Did any Member States express misgivings in this connection about the German export plans? If so, what were they? Did Germany carry out a full assessment of the human rights situation in Turkey and submit it to the 2. other Members of the Council? If so, when? Did Germany examine whether or not the Leopard 2 A5 could be used for internal repression within 3. Turkey? If so, with what results? 4. Is the Council aware that the Turkish military is conducting offensives against the PKK, inter alia on the border with Iraq, and that there are regular large-scale incursions into northern Iraq? To what extent is this compatible with Criterion Two of the Code of Conduct, which does not permit violation of the territoriality principle by end-users?