EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 92000E002912

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2912/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council. Austria/sanctions.

SL C 151E, 22.5.2001, p. 23–23 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)

European Parliament's website

92000E2912

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2912/00 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council. Austria/sanctions.

Official Journal 151 E , 22/05/2001 P. 0023 - 0023


WRITTEN QUESTION E-2912/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Austria/sanctions

According to the statement presented to the APA and AFP news agencies on 26 June, the 14 EU Heads of State and Government have decided to maintain measures against the Austrian Government.

Officially, the 14 Heads of State and Government had not yet reached a conclusive agreement on the Portuguese initiative. The spokesman for the EU Presidency revealed on Tuesday evening that there was no conclusive consensus. He also announced that the Austrian Government would be informed of the plan as soon is it had been officially presented.

This approach reveals several faults:

- two news agencies were clearly informed prior to the Austrian Federal Government. The Federal Government had to find out about an Exit Strategy via the media;

- there was no indication of a time-frame for the implementation of the plan;

- a council of three wise men is to present a report on the basis of a thorough examination, focusing on the obligation of the Austrian Government to uphold common European values, with particular regard to the rights of minorities, refugees and immigrants.

The action of the 14 is lacking greatly in sensitivity and appears somewhat grotesque.

The Council:

1. Why did it not initially enter into direct dialogue with the Austrian Federal Government and only then pass the information onto the news agencies?

2. How does it conceive the long since necessary conclusion of the scandalous witch hunt, if it is not even willing to set down a time-frame?

3. If it really wishes to emphasise the common European values and to examine the Austrian Government in relation to the observance of minority rights, why is its commitment, as far as the embodiment of minority rights in a charter of fundamental rights for the EU is concerned, so lacking?

4. How is it possible that France and Belgium two of the most avid supporters of the sanctions have still not ratified or signed the Council of Europe's Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities?

Reply

(22 December 2000)

The Council has not taken a view on any of the issues raised by the Honourable Member, and is not therefore in a position to respond to the question.

Top