Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 92000E000980

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0980/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Discriminatory provisions in the law on property of a number of applicant countries.

ĠU C 72E, 6.3.2001, p. 12–12 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)

European Parliament's website

92000E0980

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0980/00 by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Discriminatory provisions in the law on property of a number of applicant countries.

Official Journal 072 E , 06/03/2001 P. 0012 - 0012


WRITTEN QUESTION E-0980/00

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: Discriminatory provisions in the law on property of a number of applicant countries

On their accession to the European Union the current applicant countries will have a law on property which corresponds to the acquis communautaire. Accordingly, any discriminatory provisions in particular in respect of restitution and privatisation must be regarded as an infringement of Community law.

Hitherto the Commission has not expressed an opinion on the question of the lawfulness of legislation on privatisation, compensation and restitution in countries seeking membership of the European Union. Does the Commission share the views that if it were to publish a white paper on these issues, which affect almost all the candidate countries, this could make for greater legal certainty?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0980/00, E-0981/00 and E-0982/00 given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

The EC Treaty states that it shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership (Article 295 ex Article 222). The Commission thus has no competence for intervening in questions relating to restitution of property in a current or future Member State.

For this reason, the Commission does not foresee publishing a white book on this matter.

For the reasons mentioned above, it is not for the Commission to take a position on the specific cases raised by the Honourable Member.

Top