11 The EU and Serbia
| (a)
(29213)
15616/07
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(07) 743
(b)
(29214)
15690/07
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(07) 744
(c)
(29427)
—
—
|
Draft Council Decisions on the signing and on the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and its Member States and the Republic of Serbia
Draft Council Decision concerning the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia
Interim Political Agreement on Co-operation between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Serbia
|
| Legal base | (a) and (b) Articles 300 and 310 EC; unanimity
(c) —
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letters of 20 October and 1 November 2010
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 5-iii (2009-10), chapter 20 (9 December 2009); HC 19-xxvi (2008-09), chapter 21 (10 September 2009); HC 19-xxiii (2008-09), chapter 8 (8 July 2009); HC 19-ix (2008-09), chapter 11 (4 March 2009); HC 19-v (2008-09), chapter 16 (28 January 2009);HC 19-i (2008-09), chapter 17 (10 December 2008); HC16-xxiv (2007-08), chapter 15 (18 June 2008), HC16-xxi (2007-08), chapter 17 (14 May 2008), HC16-xii (2007-08), chapter 1 (20 February 2008) HC16-x (2007-08), chapter 4 (30 January 2008) and HC16-viii (2007-08), chapter 5 (16 January 2008); also see (26575) 8884/05: HC 34-i (2005-06), chapter 48 (4 July 2005); and (29103) 14999/07; (29104) 15001/07; (29100) 14995/07; (29099) 14993/07; (29101) 14996/07; (29102) 14997/07: HC 16-v (2007-08), chapter 1 (5 December 2007)
|
| Discussed in Council | 25 October 2010 Foreign Affairs Council
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared (debated in European Committee B on 29 April 2008); further information received
|
Background
11.1 The Stabilisation and Association Process was devised by
the EU to bring the countries of the Western Balkans closer to
the EU and to help prepare them for eventual membership. The Stabilisation
and Association Agreement (SAA) is a key step on the path to EU
membership. It establishes a far-reaching legal relationship between
the EU and the country concerned, entailing mutual rights and
obligations; the gradual implementation of a free trade area;
reforms designed to achieve the adoption of EU standards in areas
such as justice, freedom and security, accompanied by formalised
political dialogue; enhanced regional co-operation; and a Stabilisation
and Association Council to supervise implementation.
11.2 The Commission completed negotiations for an SAA with Serbia
on 10 September 2007. On 7 November 2007 Serbia and the Commission
initialled the text of the Agreement.
The Council Decisions
11.3 The purpose of the first Council Decision is obtain Council
approval to the text of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement
and "to engage the procedures for the signature and final
conclusion" of the Agreement.
11.4 The purpose of the second Council Decision is to authorise
signature of an Interim Agreement (IA), comprising the Community
competence elements (trade, agriculture, industrial and competition
provisions of the SAA) at the same time as the SAA, to come into
force as soon as possible after signature, to take account of
the fact that ratification of the SAA may take up to a year following
signature.
Previous consideration
11.5 The previous Committee's earlier consideration is detailed
in the previous Reports listed above.[58]
In brief, the previous Committee engaged in prolonged discussion
with successive Ministers for Europe since January 2008 about
signature of these Council Decisions and, given differences then
obtaining among Member States on the signing of the Interim Agreement,
an Interim Political Agreement. In the event, they were resolved
among Member States in such a way that the 29 April 2008 GAERC
approved the Council Decisions, whereupon the two agreements were
signed. On the same day, European Committee B debated these documents
and a collection of annual progress reports on the Western Balkan
EU aspirants.[59]
11.6 As the previous Committee noted, it had no concerns over
the nature of the SAA or of its conclusion with Serbia per se:
on the contrary; however, what had bedevilled this process all
along was the behaviour of the Serbian authorities with respect
to the International Criminal Tribunal for (former) Yugoslavia
(ICTY). Although the ICTY had been prepared to indicate to the
Commission and Council that cooperation had improved sufficiently
to warrant continued negotiation and, latterly, initialling of
a text, it was plainly not yet able to certify that "full
cooperation" obtained. The Committee's concern had thus revolved
around this associated ICTY Conditionality.
11.7 The three most recent Reports before the one of last December
summarise discussion with the previous Ministers for Europe Caroline
Flint and Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead, and in particular the
former's letters of 4 December 2008 and of 16 and 18 February
2009 and the latter's letter of 30 June 2009. In essence, the
previous Committee sought to understand the process whereby the
Government shifted its position — first abandoning the requirement
for full cooperation prior to signature of the SAA, and then abandoning
it prior to implementation of the IA — and the then Minister
sought to explain how this had happened. Following the 23 February
2009 GAERC meeting, the then Minister said that, while the UK
would be ready for the EU to recognise Serbia's significantly
improved co-operation with the ICTY by allowing entry into force
of Serbia's 'Interim Agreement', full co-operation remained the
condition for ratification of Serbia's Stabilisation and Association
Agreement.
11.8 The then Government's position on this matter now being finally
made clear, the previous Committee looked forward to hearing more
from the then Minister as and when the situation changed —
either within the confines of the Council or in the degree of
cooperation by the Serbian authorities — and in the meantime
reported these further exchanges to the House.[60]
11.9 In her 30 June 2009 letter, the then Minister (Baroness Kinnock
of Holyhead) wrote about the discussions on Serbia's co-operation
with ICTY at the General Affairs and External Relations Council
(GAERC) on 15/16 June. She reported that, following his visit
to Belgrade on 11/12 May 2009 and formal presentation of the ICTY
completion strategy to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
on 4 June 2009, ICTY Chief Prosecutor Serge Brammertz had been
invited to the GAERC to discuss Serbia's co-operation with ICTY.
She attached a copy of the relevant section of Brammertz's report
to the UNSC for the previous Committee's information.[61]
Following Brammertz' presentation, there was a debate amongst
EU Member States on the implications for implementation of Serbia's
Interim Agreement and ratification of her Stabilisation and Association
Agreement (SAA). She continued as follows:
"As my predecessor informed the Committee, the Government's
existing policy is that the UK would be content to implement now
Serbia's Interim Agreement on the basis of Serbia's significantly
improved co-operation with the ICTY, while keeping ratification
of the SAA conditional on Serbia's full co-operation with
the ICTY. In our view, 'full co-operation' would mean committed
and sustained activity from the Serbian Government, demonstrating
100 per cent effort and political will. Co-operation with the
Tribunal covers efforts in a range of areas including: tackling
support networks; meeting requests for documents; allowing access
to archives; ensuring protection of witnesses; as well as locating
and transferring remaining indictees.
"However, discussion at the 15/16 June GAERC confirmed that
there was no consensus amongst EU Member States on implementation
of the Interim Agreement and the EU will therefore not at this
stage proceed to unblock it. In the event that consensus on this
issue be reached in subsequent EU discussion, we envisage that
the IA will be unblocked in due course by revisiting the
existing GAERC conclusions on ICTY conditionality, rather
than by a Council Decision [the Minister's emphasis]. However,
like my predecessor, I will keep the Committees updated of any
future progress on this issue."
The previous Committee's assessment
11.10 The previous Committee noted that in her letter of 4 December
2008, the then Minister said that "Implementation of the
Interim Agreement involves a further Council Decision, and is
therefore subject to Parliamentary scrutiny". They therefore
asked the Minister to explain why, and on what basis, it had now
been decided to that "revisiting the existing GAERC conclusions"
was an appropriate way to "unblock it". And why the
Minister had underlined this sentence. All in all, the impression
given was that, contrary to the assurances received hitherto,
the then Government was seeking to move to the next stage and
then announce the fact, so as to avoid having to explain the decision
to do so ahead of time.
11.11 Given that the interim SAA contained all the Community competence
elements (i.e., trade, agriculture, industrial and competition
provisions) of the SAA, the previous Committee also asked the
then Minister to explain what further Serbia would gain from the
full SAA, i.e., what incentives would the Serbian authorities
then have to make them move with greater determination —
exercising "100 per cent effort and political will"
— towards full cooperation, as defined above, including
locating and transferring remaining indictees, and in particular
Ratko Mladic.
The then Minister's letter of 1 December 2009
11.12 The then Minister for Europe (Chris Bryant) said that, as
noted by his predecessor:
"...the Government's policy until now has been that the UK
would be content to implement Serbia's Interim Agreement, on the
basis of Serbia's significantly improved co-operation with the
ICTY, while keeping ratification of the SAA conditional on Serbia's
full co-operation with the ICTY.
"...the Government's view is that 'full co-operation'
means committed and sustained activity from the Serbian Government,
demonstrating 100 per cent effort and political will in co-operating
with ICTY — and that that co-operation covers efforts in
a wide range of areas including: tackling support networks; meeting
requests for documents; allowing access to archives; ensuring
protection of witnesses; as well as in locating and transferring
the remaining indictees." [The Minister's emphasis.]
11.13 The then Minister noted that ICTY Prosecutor Brammertz was
scheduled to deliver his next report on ICTY's completion strategy
to the UN Security Council on 3 December, "just days before
the 7/8 December GAERC (at which we expect Serbia's relationship
with the EU, including in relation to progress on ICTY co-operation,
to be discussed)." This report would include an annex on
the co-operation of regional states with his office, including
Serbia. It was, the then Minister said, "Brammertz's most
positive report on Serbia to date", assessing that:
— Serbia's
co-operation had continued to improve and develop;
— the
Serbian authorities were providing timely responses to requests
arising during trials at The Hague for access to documents and
archives, with no requests outstanding;
— they
had responded quickly to facilitate the appearance of witnesses
before the tribunal and made the necessary arrangements to safeguard
them;
— they
were actively conducting search operations for the two remaining
indictees.
11.14 With regard to the central issue of cooperation,
the then Minister said that the report concluded that Brammertz
was "satisfied" with the current level of efforts undertaken
by the Serbian authorities.
11.15 Turning to the previous Committee's request
in its Report of 10 September 2009 to be informed of any decisions
ahead of any GAERC where Serbia's progress along the EU path might
be discussed, the then Minister said:
"The decision of whether or not Serbia is fully
co-operating with the ICTY is one for individual member states
to take. However as you are aware a unanimous decision is required
by all EU Member State to implement the IA and ratify the SAA.
"Given the very short window between Brammertz's
formal report to the UNSC on 3 December and EU discussion at the
GAERC on 7-8 December, I wanted to inform the Committee that,
provided Brammertz' report to the UNSC confirms his draft assessment,
the Government will assess that Serbia is now fully co-operating
with ICTY and therefore would be ready in principle to support
an EU decision both to implement Serbia's Interim Agreement and
also to start the process of SAA ratification. Our judgement is
that this would [be] the right way to incentivise further sustained
co-operation by Serbia. In doing so, we shall make clear to the
Serbian Government, EU partners and Chief Prosecutor Brammertz
that, should Serbia fail to maintain full co-operation at any
stage during its EU accession process, we would be ready to support
appropriate measures in response."
11.16 Subsequently, on 7 December 2009, the Government
issued a Written Ministerial Statement.[62]
11.17 Then, on 8 December, the Council adopted the
following Conclusions:
"The Council welcomes Serbia's commitment to
EU integration by undertaking key reforms in line with European
standards and by gradually building up a track-record in implementing
the provisions of the Interim Agreement with the EU. The Council
notes that the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY is satisfied
with the current level of efforts undertaken by Serbia's authorities
in their cooperation and insists that Serbia maintain these efforts
in order to achieve additional positive results. Recalling the
Council conclusions of 29 April 2008, the Council decides that
the Union will start implementing the Interim Agreement. The Council
will turn to the next issue — ratification of the Stabilisation
and Association Agreement — in six months time."[63]
The previous Committee's further assessment
11.18 The previous Committee reported this further
information to the House because of the widespread interest in
the accession process in the western Balkans.
11.19 It felt that only time would tell if the right
decisions had been taken. And the then Government had made it
clear that, if thus "incentivised", the Serbian authorities
failed to respond, it would respond appropriately.
11.20 It also looked forward to hearing further from
the then Minister in six month's time, which it presumed would
be after the ICTY Chief Prosecutor's next report.
The Minister's letter of 14 June 2010
11.21 In his letter, the Minister for Europe (David
Lidington) was able only to say that that ICTY Chief Prosecutor
Brammertz would brief EU Foreign Ministers on 14 June (prior to
presenting his next report to the UN Security Council on 18 June);
that his latest report maintained the positive view of Serbian
efforts reported by him last December; and that he anticipated
a unanimous decision by all EU Member States on 14 June to start
ratification of Serbia's SAA. Given the timeline, the Minister
also felt able only to outline, and in confidence, the main points
in Brammertz's latest report.
11.22 In its response of 8 September 2010, the Committee
enclosed for ease of reference a copy of its predecessor's most
recent Report and noted that it cannot act on the basis of information
provided in confidence. So, now that the Council had met and Brammertz
had presented his latest report to the UN Security Council, the
Committee asked the Minister to write with full information about
his report, how this enabled the Minister to judge that the "full
cooperation" benchmark had been met and what the June Foreign
Affairs Council concluded, so that the Committee might be able,
should it so judge, to make a further Report to the House.
11.23 The Minister also said in his letter that he
wished to advise the Committee that there might also be a discussion
at the June Foreign Affairs Council about Serbia's application
for EU membership; that it was his view that there was still no
consensus amongst EU Member States to forward Serbia's application
to the Commission; and that a decision on this was likely to be
deferred. Again, the Committee asked to know what transpired and,
if the outcome was as he anticipated, what it was that Serbia
must do and/or not do so that a favourable consensus might emerge.
The Minister's letter of 20 October 2010
11.24 Having briefed EU Foreign Ministers at the
EU Foreign Affairs Council on the 14 June prior to presenting
his report to the UN Security Council (UNSC) on 18 June, the Minister
now encloses a copy of the section that relates to Serbia.[64]
11.25 With regard to how this report enabled the
Government to judge that the "full co-operation" benchmark
had been met, the Minister says:
"The previous Government publicly defined 'full
co-operation' with the ICTY as committed and sustained activity
demonstrating one hundred percent effort and political will. I
want us to maintain this yardstick and apply it consistently across
the region.
"The previous Government assessed in December
2009 that Serbia was 'fully co-operating' with ICTY. Our assessment
in June concluded that co-operation had been sustained since December
and that Serbia was indeed fully co-operating with ICTY. This
was based on the fact that the Serbians were responding to requests
for access to documents, archives and witnesses in a timely manner;
there were no requests for documents or access to archives outstanding;
the Serbian authorities were acting promptly in responses to witness
protection and they had successfully conducted certain investigative
activities, including search and seizure operations. In his June
report to the UNSC Chief Prosecutor Brammertz also recognised
the continued efforts of Serbia's operational services and the
key role of the National Security Council in co-ordinating the
efforts of the different security agencies, in relation to the
location and arrest of the two remaining indictees (Ratko Mladic
and Goran Hadzic). The only area in which Brammertz expressed
disappointment was that the Serbian authorities had not located
the remaining indictees and gave recommendations of areas where
Serbian authorities' operational approach and methodology could
be improved."
11.26 The Minister also confirms that the June Foreign
Affairs Council agreed that Member States should now proceed with
ratification of the SAA; that the Government had accordingly laid
the SAA before Parliament on 24 August; and that he very much
hopes that Parliament will debate ratification during the course
of this Parliamentary session.
11.27 The Minister then continues thus:
"I would like to reassure the Committee that
while the Government's position is that Serbia continues fully
to co-operate with ICTY we continue to make clear to the Serbian
Government and EU partners that, should Serbia fail fully to co-operate
at any stage during its EU accession process, we would be ready
to consider appropriate measures in response. These measures could
include, for example, delaying, slowing or stopping UK ratification
of Serbia's SAA, and/or withholding agreement to the grant of
EU Candidate Status or subsequent opening of accession negotiations."
11.28 With regard to Serbia's application for EU
Membership, the Minister confirms that there was "a brief
discussion about referral of the application to the Commission"
at the June FAC, but no consensus in favour of referral; and that
the Council noted that Serbia had applied for membership of the
EU, welcomed Serbia's continued commitment to EU integration and
decided to return to the issue of referral at another time. He
continues as follows:
"Since then, the Belgian Presidency has announced
its intention to place the issue of referral to the Commission
of Serbia's application for EU Membership on the agenda of the
25 October General Affairs Council.
"It is not clear whether there will be consensus
at the 25 October GAC in favour of referral. The Government's
position, however, will be to support the principle of prompt
referral to the Commission and will be ready to agree this at
the 25 October GAC. As the Foreign Secretary set out during his
visit to Belgrade on 31 August, the Government strongly supports
EU accession of all countries in the region, including Serbia,
provided they meet the necessary conditionality." [The
Minister's emphasis].
The Minister's further letter of 1 November 2010
11.29 The Minister confirms that the 25 October General
Affairs Council agreed to refer Serbia's application for EU membership
to the Commission for an Avis (or Opinion), and encloses the relevant
Council Conclusions.[65]
The Minister continues as follows:
"As you will see from the Conclusions, the Council
reaffirmed the importance it attaches to Serbia sustaining full
co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for former
Yugoslavia (ICTY). The Council agreed that before each stage of
Serbia's path towards EU accession the Council must unanimously
decide that full co-operation with the ICTY exists or continues
to exist. The Council also agreed that it would continue closely
to monitor the progress reports issued by the Office of the ICTY
Chief Prosecutor. Chief Prosecutor Brammertz's next report to
the United Nations Security Council will be in December.
"The Council also reiterated, in the context
of progress by applicants towards the European Union, that a constructive
approach to regional co-operation is essential. The Council called
in particular for progress in the process of dialogue between
Belgrade and Pristina under the facilitation of Baroness Ashton.
This dialogue was welcomed by the United Nations General Assembly,
in its resolution of 9 September 2010, as a factor for peace,
security and stability in the region. Preparations for the dialogue
are underway."
11.30 The Minister anticipates that the Commission
will take approximately a year to complete Serbia's Avis, and
says that:
"It will consider, in detail, the ability of
Serbia to meet the criteria for, and assume the obligations of,
EU membership. The Avis will assess whether, in the Commission's
opinion, Serbia is ready to assume Candidate status and to begin
accession negotiations or, if not, what further reforms would
be necessary before they would be ready to begin such negotiations."
11.31 The Minister concludes his letter by noting
that:
"The Government welcomes the decision of the
Council to refer Serbia's application, which represents an important
step forward in Serbia's relationship with the EU and the process
of conditions-based enlargement to the Western Balkans region
as a whole."
Conclusion
11.32 The Government's position is clear: Serbia's
co-operation with ICTY has been sustained since December and Serbia
is indeed fully co-operating with ICTY — that being defined
as "committed and sustained activity demonstrating one hundred
percent effort and political will". On the key issue —
the apprehension of the two most egregious fugitives — it
might be argued that the ICTY Chief Prosecutor seems somewhat
less convinced, viz the concluding paragraph of his assessment:
"50. The Serbian Government must give its
full support to the operational services that have been tasked
with tracking and apprehending the fugitives. Ongoing financial,
logistical and political support is imperative. There can be no
alternative to the immediate arrest of the two remaining fugitives,
Ratko Mladic and Goran Hadzic."
11.33 For our part, the next stage will be when
the Commission Communication containing the Commission Avis is
presented for scrutiny.
11.34 In the meantime, we are reporting this further
information to the House.
Annex 1
"Extract of Report of Serge Brammertz, Prosecutor
of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
— June 2010
"Cooperation of Serbia
"40. The Office of the Prosecutor continues
to seek cooperation from Serbia in two principal areas. Firstly,
the Office of the Prosecutor requires Serbia's support in ongoing
trials and appeals. Secondly, the Office of the Prosecutor seeks
Serbia's assistance in the key matter of the arrest of the two
fugitives, Ratko Mladic and Goran Hadzic.
"Support to ongoing trials and appeals
"41. Serbia's responses to the Office of the
Prosecutor's requests for access to documents, archives and witnesses
have been timely and adequate. At this point, no requests remain
outstanding. Serbia's Council for Cooperation with the Tribunal
continued to successfully fulfil its coordination function between
various government bodies, in order to address the Office of the
Prosecutor's requests.
"42. The Serbian authorities have continued
to facilitate the appearance of witnesses before the Tribunal,
including serving summonses on individuals. The Office of the
Prosecutor has communicated its concerns about the possible involvement
of certain officials within government institutions allegedly
intimidating and threatening Prosecution witnesses. The Serbian
Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor and law enforcement bodies
acted promptly and took necessary measures to ensure the protection
of witnesses under threat.
"43. In the reporting period, Serbian authorities
successfully conducted certain investigative activities, including
search and seizure operations. On 24 February 2010, Serbia's Action
Team responsible for tracking fugitives conducted a search of
the apartment of the wife of Ratko Mladic. Numerous items were
seized in the course of the search, including 18 notebooks containing
the handwritten war-time notes of Ratko Mladic, and associated
tapes. The notebooks contain over 3,000 handwritten pages.
"44. At the end of March 2010, the Serbian Government
provided the Prosecution with scanned images of the Ratko Mladic
notebooks. In early May 2010 they delivered the original notebooks
and tapes. Based upon the Prosecution's preliminary review of
these materials, they contain highly valuable information, which
is now being submitted as evidence in a number of trials. The
Office of the Prosecutor welcomes this important development,
as well as the authorities' effective investigation action and
prompt hand-over of the sized material.
"45. Bearing in mind the tight trial schedule,
the Office of the Prosecutor encourages Serbian authorities to
continue responding effectively to its requests for assistance.
Assistance by Serbia remains crucial to the Tribunal's successful
completion of the remaining trials and appeals.
"Arrest of fugitives
"46.The most critical outstanding aspect of
Serbia's assistance to the Office of the Prosecutor remains the
apprehension of the two fugitives. To date, no evidence has been
uncovered indicating that Ratko Mladic is not in Serbia.
"47. During the reporting period, the Office
of the Prosecutor remained in close contact with the Serbian agencies
in charge of locating and arresting the fugitives. The Prosecutor
and members of his senior staff were regularly apprised of the
work undertaken by the Serbian agencies charged with locating
and arresting the fugitives. Briefings by Serbia's officials covered
the scope and nature of measures taken, investigative avenues
pursed and operations conducted.
"48. Six months ago, the Office of the Prosecutor
reported a number of improvements in the efficiency and professionalism
with which the Serbian authorities were conducting the search
for fugitives. The Office of the Prosecutor recognises the continuing
effort of Serbia's operational services, and the key role of the
National Security Council in coordinating the efforts of different
security agencies. However, in the absence of tangible results
and after careful examination of operational activities conducted,
the Office of the Prosecutor strongly recommends an in-depth review
of the strategies employed.
"49. The Office of the Prosecutor has identified
and raised areas in which the Serbian authorities' operational
approach, analysis and methodologies can be improved. Valuable
time has been invested by the Serbian agencies in pursuing individual
lines of investigation in isolation, rather than following multiple
leads simultaneously. Serbia is therefore encouraged to increase
its operational capacities, and to adopt a more rigorous and multi-disciplinary
approach to arresting the fugitives.
"50. The Serbian Government must give its full
support to the operational services that have been tasked with
tracking and apprehending the fugitives. Ongoing financial, logistical
and political support is imperative. There can be no alternative
to the immediate arrest of the two remaining fugitives, Ratko
Mladic and Goran Hadzic."
Annex 2: 25 October 2010 General
Affairs Council Conclusions on Serbia
The Council adopted the following conclusions:
"1. On 22 December 2009, President Mr Boris
Tadic presented the application of the Republic of Serbia for
membership of the European Union. The Council decided to implement
the procedure laid down in Article 49 of the Treaty on the European
Union. Accordingly, the Commission is invited to submit its opinion.
2. Recalling the renewed consensus on enlargement
as expressed in the conclusions of the European Council of 14/15
December 2006, the Council reaffirms that the future of the Western
Balkans lies in the European Union. It reiterates that each country's
progress towards the European Union depends on its individual
efforts to comply with the Copenhagen criteria and the conditionality
of the Stabilisation and Association Process.
3. The Council reiterates that a constructive approach
towards regional cooperation is essential. The Council also calls
for progress in the process of dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina,
under the facilitation of the EU and its High Representative for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, welcomed in the United Nations
General Assembly resolution of 9 September 2010 as a factor for
peace, security and stability in the region.
4. The Council recalls that Serbia's full cooperation
with ICTY is already required by the Stabilisation and Association
Agreement, as well as by the Interim Agreement. In line with the
political criteria of Copenhagen full cooperation with ICTY is
an essential condition for membership of the EU. In the context
of Serbia's application for membership of the European Union on
22 December 2009, the EU underlines that at each stage of Serbia's
path towards EU accession, following the decision referred to
in paragraph 1, further steps will be taken when the Council unanimously
decides that full co-operation with the ICTY exists or continues
to exist. In this context, the Council will closely monitor the
progress reports by the Office of the Prosecutor. The EU and its
Member States recall their readiness to assist Serbia in this
respect.
5. The Council calls upon Serbia to implement recommendations
presented by the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor to the United Nations
Security Council in June 2010 concerning Serbia's support in ongoing
trials and appeals and Serbia's assistance in the key matter of
the arrest of the two remaining fugitives, Ratko Mladic and Goran
Hadzic, which would be the most convincing proof of Serbia's efforts
and cooperation with the ICTY."
58 See headnote. Back
59
See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmgeneral/euro/080429/80429s01.htm
for the record of that debate. Back
60
See headnote: HC 19-ix (2008-09), chapter 11 (4 March 2009);. Back
61
See headnote: HC 5-iii, Annex 1 to chapter 20. Back
62
See headnote: HC 5-iii, Annex 2 to chapter 20. Back
63
Part of the full "Council conclusions on enlargement/stabilisation
and association process" available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/111830.pdf. Back
64
This is reproduced at Annex 1 of this chapter of our Report. Back
65
Reproduced at Annex 2 of this chapter of our Report, and available
at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/117314.pdf. Back
| 
