You are on page 1of 2

12.6.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 137 E/81

Under Article 27 of the Framework Decision a Member State may waive the speciality principle on
condition that in its decision on surrender in the specific case the judicial authority does not provide
otherwise. If it does provide otherwise, the speciality principle continues to apply and prior authorisation
by the executing State is required for additional prosecution proceedings for offences not specified on the
initial European arrest warrant, unless one of the exceptions listed in Article 27(3) applies.

(2003/C 137 E/090) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2387/02


by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council
(2 August 2002)

Subject: Desecration of Jewish graves at the Rome Verano cemetery

On 18 July 2002, a date corresponding to the Fast of Ab 9, a day of mourning in the Jewish calendar,
more than 40 Jewish graves were desecrated at the Verano cemetery in Rome. The entire city was appalled
at this despicable act, the first anti-Semitic attack of such alarming seriousness to have occurred in Rome
in many years.

What action will the Council take in the wake of the barbaric desecration of the Verano cemetery?

How will it prevent and respond to the long series of anti-Semitic outrages of the kind perpetrated, before
the Rome incident, in Strasbourg, Marseilles, and Brussels?

How will it combat the crazed subculture which, by fomenting hatred of the Jews while demonising the
state of Israel, leads to shameful episodes of the sort that occurred in Rome?

Is in a position to ascertain whether anti-Semitic organisations are pursuing a calculated strategy and
perhaps cooperating on an international basis?

Reply
(6 February 2003)

The Council strongly condemns any form of racism or xenophobia. At its meeting on 25/26 April 2002,
the Council adopted conclusions in which it indicated its wish to step up preventive action against racist
violence and antisemitism, and advocated closer cooperation between the police forces of the Member
States. In addition, a Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia is currently being drawn
up at the Council. The purpose of this Framework Decision is to establish minimum common standards as
regards criminalising conduct motivated by racism or xenophobia and to improve cooperation between
the authorities of the Member States in combating this type of crime. However, the Council would remind
the Honourable Member that Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union states that the exercise of
responsibilities with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security
lies with the Member States.

(2003/C 137 E/091) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2400/02


by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council
(5 August 2002)

Subject: False and damaging information on the Rome coastline posted on a German tourist site on the
Internet

Is the Council aware of the fact that, on its Internet site (www.marcopolo.de/index), Germany’s leading
tourist guide, Marco Polo, makes the totally unjustified accusation that the Rome coastline  with
particular reference to the beach at Ostia  is infested with rubbish and terrible diseases, going so far as to
make defamatory statements about the presence of typhus fever and cholera among other things?
C 137 E/82 Official Journal of the European Union EN 12.6.2003

What action does the Council intend to take in order to make the truth known and to protect Ostia’s
image, given that the Italian public health authorities have categorically denied any risks and given
assurances that it is safe to bathe anywhere on the coast?

How does it intend to prevent the major efforts and investments being made by the public authorities and
the private sector with a view to enhancing the Rome coastline’s appeal to Italian and foreign tourists from
being undermined by false accusations?

Reply

(6 February 2003)

As a general rule, it is not for the Council to express a view on medias statements nor has it discussed this
particular subject. The Honourable Member should rather address his question to the Italian authorities
who can react in their own right through the proper channels.

(2003/C 137 E/092) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2403/02


by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(31 July 2002)

Subject: Money laundering directive

There is currently a debate going on in Austria concerning Directive 2001/97/EC (1) of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC (2) on
prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering, published in the
Official Journal of the European Communities on 28 December 2001.

In this connection the question arises as to whether the recitals of the Money Laundering Directive,
particularly Nos 16, 17 and 18, have the force of law, or whether they are merely explanatory in nature.

In our opinion the recitals of the Money Laundering Directive have the force of law and are binding on the
Austrian legislature.

Could the Commission inform me whether this is the case?

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 76.


(2) OJ L 166, 28.6.1991, p. 77.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

Article 253 of the EC Treaty lays down that directives ‘shall state the reasons on which they are based’.

The purpose of the recitals to a directive is thus to explain the reasoning followed by the legislative
authority or authorities which adopted the measure in question.

The obligations imposed by a directive are set out in the articles, whereas the recitals to a directive do not
have, strictly speaking, the force of law.