ASSOCIATION Brussels, 19 May 2011 BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND TURKEY —————— The Association Council UE-TR 4805/11
COVER NOTE Subject: 49th meeting of the EU-Turkey Association Council (Brussels, 19 April 2011)
Delegations will find attached the statements by Turkey tabled on the occasion of the 49th meeting of the EU-Turkey Association Council.
______
UE-TR 4805/11 1 EN 49th SESSION OF THE TURKEY-EU ASSOCIATION COUNCIL
STATEMENT BY H.E. MR. AHMET DAVUTOĞLU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
AND
STATEMENT BY H.E. MR. EGEMEN BAĞIŞ, MINISTER OF STATE FOR EU AFFAIRS AND CHIEF NEGOTIATOR OF THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
AGENDA ITEM 3: ACCESSION STRATEGY, IN PARTICULAR IN THE LIGHT OF THE ACCESSION PARTNERSHIP AND OF THE COMMISSION’S 2009 PROGRESS REPORT
BRUSSELS, 19 APRIL 2011 We have noted the heading “Political criteria, other requirements of the Negotiating Framework and enhanced political dialogue” used in the EU’s common position. The heading “Other requirements of the Negotiating Framework” has no place in the acquis of Turkish-EU relations. We would like to put on record that we cannot accept this terminology. On this issue, we made our position clear various times at previous Association Council and Association Committee meetings. These are on record. I regret to see that it has not been taken into consideration. Therefore, I will once again confirm that I will speak of “good neighborly relations” and “Cyprus” under the heading of “Enhanced Political Dialogue”.
This meeting is being held at a critical point in terms of Turkey’s accession process. Our accession negotiations have almost reached a “standstill”. Further to the 11-12 December 2006 Council Conclusions suspending 8 chapters, the EU has conceded to the unilateral actions of Greek Cypriots and France, which are directly responsible for the current stalemate in our accession process. We should seriously question the sustainability of this situation. We are a part and parcel of Europe and we will make every effort to continue and to speed up the accession process. However, we need to see the same resolute stance from the Union. The EU institutionally has the responsibility to ensure that member states do not take hostage the negotiation process for their short-sighted unilateral claims. We need a single and clear message from the EU to see the light at the end of the tunnel. It is not only our joint historical responsibility, but also common interest to move further in Turkish-EU relations.
TURKEY’S FOREIGN POLICY
We are living in an era of constant change and transformation, fuelled even more by an unprecedented pace in technological development. One can easily say that never has interaction among societies been as dense and vibrant as it is today.
This robust interaction brings about plenty of new opportunities for cooperation. Then again; the serious problems that we continue to face, combined with a long list of new or evolving threats, can still severely overshadow our optimism. The challenges that we have to tackle today are much more serious than they used to be.
And as the globe continues to search for its new and hopefully more democratic, pluralist, inclusive and egalitarian order, I’m afraid, that even a slightest step in the wrong direction can be a torch thrown on fuel.
As such, every country must have the courage and the will to solve its own problems by owning up to them. They must actively work towards establishing functional orders that are conducive to peace, stability and development. They must all aim for the highest standards in every field, while keeping abreast of the changes, transformations and winds of reform that are driven by globalization.
Along with that, the creation of a global governance system that can effectively address this transformation is equally important. In this regard, we must all reach out to the emerging new powers and promote effective multilateralism by solidifying the roles of international organizations. The UN should undergo an all encompassing reform and the developing countries should have a louder say in decisions that directly affect them.
1 In terms of the global economic architecture, the G-20 provides a good example with its much more democratic and representative nature. The other aspects of the global governance should reflect the evolving character of the international system and allow for more cooperative and effective mechanisms.
In this context, efforts in the political and economic sphere to bring peace and stability will be incomplete if not supported by steps in the cultural field, particularly at a time when we are witnessing a global rise in the tide of extremism, xenophobia and intolerance. Thus intercultural dialogue is especially important.
Indeed it is high time to build bridges and tear down walls. Isolationist or self-categorizing approaches to matters that are fuelled with discriminatory rhetoric are doomed to fail. Proponents of such an approach have learned nothing from history, and have done nothing except replacing the ideological “isms” of the Cold War with new and artificial fault lines. History is full of shameful examples of what can happen as a result of such a stance. Europe and the “West”, so to speak, have a special responsibility to remain true to the very values we have so far advocated and continue to lead by example.
Amidst these complex dynamics, where to start is in fact very much simple. It boils down to one word: “dialogue”. Dialogue is even more relevant today and its mechanisms will surely continue to evolve and change in the future. It has to, if it is going to meet the challenges and demands ahead. I believe timely, constructive and a genuine dialogue among those who may have differentiated standpoints will critically help us to cooperate and understand each other. Hopefully, this approach will gradually free mankind from many of the problems impeding its mutual betterment.
Turkey is certainly guided by this conviction in its proactive, multi-dimensional and visionary foreign policy. We seek to establish a zone of peace, stability and prosperity in our wider region through dialogue and cooperation. An enhanced regional engagement whereby we pursue a policy of “zero problems” in our neighbourhood constitutes an important aspect of our foreign policy principles. We know that resolving complex disputes takes time and hard work. But above all, it takes political will. This principle reflects our strong political will to address all outstanding bilateral issues, find the optimum solutions and eliminate the risk of conflict once and for all. While “zero problems with neighbours” continue to be the fundamental objective, enhanced political dialogue, economic interdependence and cultural understanding are the actual drivers of our foreign policy.
Global problems call for comprehensive solutions and the active cooperation of all members of the international community. Through this prism, today the problems of the world require more involvement also from the EU. Parallel to the economic growth of Asian countries, the global power axis has been shifting from the West to the East. Therefore, the EU has to be strategically relevant, economically competitive and culturally inclusive to be a global player and to cope with the future challenges in a strong position. In this respect, Turkey’s accession will be an added value rather than being a burden to the EU.
As a matter of fact, Turkey and the EU share the same values and objectives in foreign policy. Both Turkey and the EU seek to establish peace, stability and security in their neighbourhood and beyond.
2 We believe that, given our shared objectives for common neighbourhood and beyond, Turkey and the EU have so much to gain from a closer cooperation and coordination in foreign policy. In particular, Turkey’s increasing soft power assets in a wide geography converges with and complements those of the EU to the benefit of all.
It was with this understanding that I have put forward certain proposals to enhance Turkey-EU strategic political dialogue during the first Turkey-EU Political Dialogue Meeting in İstanbul on 13 July 2010. These proposals included my participation in relevant Foreign Affairs Councils at ad hoc basis for consultations on regional and international issues of mutual concern, whenever there is a need. Since then, we have been awaiting for concrete steps to be taken. For example, the Foreign Affairs Council held on 12 April where Libya was discussed could have been yet another opportunity to this end. We take note of EU’s readiness to intensify its existing dialogue with Turkey on foreign policy issues of mutual interest. However, we do not see any enthusiasm from the EU side to coordinate its policies with Turkey at institutional level. Turkey’s alignment with EU common positions within the CFSP is around 80%. On our way to accession, this rate will certainly increase. However, I have to remind that while Turkey is being encouraged to develop its foreign policy as a complement to and in coordination with the EU, Turkey has still not received the screening report for “Chapter 31- Foreign, Security and Defence Policy”.
My proposals include: - Participation of Turkish leaders to the European Council meetings as was the case until 2005. - My participation in the EU Foreign Affairs Council meetings for consultations on regional and international issues of mutual concern, whenever there is a need. -Informal consultations at Political Directors level on regional issues of mutual concern such as the Western Balkans. -Political Directors meetings with the candidate countries as was the case prior to December 2004. -Political dialogue meetings with COWEB (Council Working Group on Western Balkans). -Regular meetings between the Turkish Permanent Delegate to the EU and the Chairman of the Political and Security Committee (PSC). -Establishing an informal ad hoc working group for defining the modalities of cooperation on strategic dialogue.
The development of Turkish-EU strategic dialogue in different areas will not be a substitute to progress in accession negotiations but rather complement them.
Normalization of relations with Armenia
Turkey has a keen interest in promoting peace, security and stability in its immediate neighbourhood. The process that we have initiated with Armenia for the normalization of our relations should also be regarded as the reflection of this interest.
3 The signing of the Protocols on October 10, 2009 in Zurich as a result of common efforts and political determination of both Turkey and Armenia was a major achievement in the direction of building a comprehensive and sustainable peace in the South Caucasus.
We remain committed to the spirit of Zurich and taking the normalization process forward. We are well aware that the unique opportunity history presents us now, is to be grasped to achieve comprehensive peace and normalization. It is with this understanding that we deem it necessary to support and strengthen the steps leading to normalization, by genuine efforts for the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
We sincerely believe that if all the interested parties display the necessary political will, and are encouraged in the right direction, our hopes for comprehensive peace in the South Caucasus will certainly be realized.
Increasing Intolerance in Europe There is an alarming and detrimental trend regarding the spread of an atmosphere of intolerance in Europe, which deserves due consideration for its indirect impact on Turkey-EU relations. After the exceptionally bitter experiences of its recent past, there should be no place for racist, xenophobic, discriminatory and exclusionary tendencies in today’s Europe. While undermining the efforts to build a harmonious common future in Europe and portraying a contradictory approach to universal values, these kind of tendencies also poison the political climate surrounding Turkey-EU relations. Therefore, the EU should take a leading role in overcoming these tendencies which have detrimental effect on enlargement.
THE REFORM PROCESS
Membership to the EU is Turkey’s strategic objective. In this vein, Turkey is continuing with great determination on the reform process, in line with its objective of full compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria. Since our last meeting in May 2010, there have been considerable developments that reflect our will to further consolidate democracy and the rule of law in Turkey.
Reform Monitoring Group, overseeing the political reform process and composed of Minister for EU Affairs and Chief Negotiator, Minister of Interior, Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice, has been a driving force behind the political reforms. In 2010, RMG convened five times as it was the case in 2009.
The Reform Monitoring Group (RMG) has become a very active instrument and an important mechanism. Meeting every two months, the group held its 23rd meeting on 14 December 2010 in Ankara to discuss the steps to be taken following the constitutional amendment package, as regards political criteria as well as matters related to Chapter 23 “Judiciary and Fundamental Rights” and Chapter 24 “Justice, Freedom, Security”.
In the context of 22nd RMG meeting dated 17 September 2010, the RMG has discussed the necessary legislation to be adopted after the constitutional amendment. As decided in 22nd RMG Meeting, an Action Plan was agreed to be prepared under the coordination of the Secretariat General for EU Affairs covering the legislative changes required by the Constitutional amendment package and to be submitted to the first meeting of Council of
4 Ministers. The Action Plan was adopted following its submission to the Council of Ministers meeting on 27 September 2010.
Also with the Political Affairs Sub-committee under the auspices of the Reform Monitoring Group, the pace of work in the area of political reforms accelerated even more with the participation of high-level bureaucrats and technical experts of relevant bodies meeting under the coordination of the Secretariat General for EU Affairs. Task Forces focusing on Anti- Discrimination and National Action Plan on Fundamental Rights are concrete examples and products of this Reform Monitoring Process.
The constitutional amendment package, adopted by referendum on September 12, brought significant changes on issues covered under Judiciary and Fundamental Rights. The amendment contains provisions regarding the social protection of persons that require special care including children, right to request the protection of personal data, right to form labour unions and the right to conclude collective labour agreements including the right to conclude collective agreements for civil servants, establishment of an independent Ombudsman, jurisdiction of the military courts, structure of the Supreme Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors, structure of the Constitutional Court, right of individual application to the Constitutional Court.
In the constitutional amendment package, the issues identified in Accession Partnerships and Progress Reports were taken into account to the highest degree. The amendments were prepared on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the case law of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the relevant Conventions of the Council of Europe. This package, prepared in light of Turkey’s harmonization process with the EU Copenhagen political criteria, created great momentum for our reform process.
The Action Plan covering the legislative changes required by the Constitutional amendment package includes new laws as well as amendments to existing Laws such as:
- Draft Law on the establishment, duties and functioning of the Ombudsman Institution; - Draft Law on the Establishment of Turkish Human Rights Institution; - Draft Law on Anti-discrimination and Equality Board; - Draft Law on Supreme Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors (adopted on 18 December 2010) - Draft Law on Protection of Personal Data; - Draft Law on the Approval of the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; (adopted on 23 February 2011) - Amendment to Law on Civil Servants' Trade Unions - Amendment to Law on the Establishment and Working Procedures of the Economic and Social Council; - Amendment to Law on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court. (adopted on 3 April 2011 )
Implementation of the Judicial Reform Strategy aiming to strengthen the independence, impartiality and efficiency in judiciary is in progress. The Ministry of Justice closely monitors the implementation of the Strategy, which has been adopted back in 2009, through a deliberate Action Plan. The issues such as “strengthening of the independence of the
5 judiciary”, “enhancement of the impartiality of the judiciary” and “restructuring of the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors on the basis of objectivity, impartiality and transparency, according to the principle of broad-based representation in light of international legal instruments” are listed as short-term objectives in the Strategy and Action Plan.
Our Government is fully committed to implement the steps laid down in the Strategy and Action Plan. A Reform Implementation Monitoring Board was set up to monitor the implementation of the Judicial Reform Strategy and Action Plan, to follow up the progress in the activities of the Action Plan within the Ministry of Justice.
The Law on Supreme Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors, which restructured the Council in favor of transparency, independence and a wide representation of the judiciary, entered into force on 18 December 2010. The Law on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court has been enacted on 3 April 2011 in line with the recent constitutional amendments. By this Law, institutional capacity of the Constitutional Court has been improved as a result of an increased number of members and the introduction of chambers. Examination of individual constitutional complaints was also added to the Court’s mandate in order to provide better protection for human rights in Turkey. Venice Commission’s recommendations were taken into account during the preparation of this legislation. In order to ease the immense workload of the high courts, legislative amendment was made to increase the chambers and members of the Court of Cassation and Council of State. The Code of Civil Procedure entered into force on 4 February 2011. On 22 February 2011, the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors appointed the chief prosecutors of the regional courts of appeal. We have recruited many judges and prosecutors this year, who are trained in line with the European Convention on Human Rights and case law of European Court of Human Rights.
To support the structural reforms, we developed another set of proposals which we believe would diminish the immense workload of the first instance courts. The draft work has been adopted by the Parliament. This measure is expected to clear around 1.600.000 files off the dockets of first instance courts.
With regard to observance of international human rights law and Human Rights Institutions, significant steps have been taken in terms of establishing full-fledged human rights institutions. The Law on the Adoption of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) was adopted by the Parliament in February 2011. The Government is taking all necessary steps with a view to completing the ratification process of the OPCAT. We will set up, designate or maintain national preventive mechanism under OPCAT for the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The “Draft Law on the Establishment of an Independent Human Rights Institution” prepared in accordance with relevant UN principles is on the agenda of the Parliament. The enactment of the Draft Law regarding the establishment of Human Rights Institution will constitute the solid ground since the institution which is envisaged to be established through this Draft Law will be the competent national authority for preventive mechanism.
“Draft Law on the Establishment of an Ombudsman Institution” is also pending for approval at the Parliament. The ombudsman institution which is foreseen to be established will provide a more effective legal framework for the preservation of the human rights by investigating the
6 complaints regarding the management of the administration. It is thus enabled to make the administrative acts and actions subject to independent scrutiny.
When considered in conjunction with the right to individual application to Constitutional Court, this regulation provides an additional means of resolving the matters between an individual and the authorities without having to apply to the European Court of Human Rights.
This amendment conforms to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Recommendation. (Recommendation No. R (85) 13 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the institution of the Ombudsman on 23 September 1985)
In order to benefit from EU experience in this field, the Ministry of Justice contacted with European Ombudsman, Nikiforos Diamandouros, and asked for his comments regarding the Draft Law on Ombudsman. Mr. Diamandouros has kindly communicated to the Ministry of Justice his opinion and a further meeting was organized with him in Strasbourg on 16th February 2011. His contribution is of great value to our efforts in this context. This new institution will be in continuous dialogue with the European Ombudsman.
In order to establish a full-fledged human rights institutional mechanism, “Draft Law on the Establishment of the Commission for the Monitoring of Law Enforcement Bodies” to examine and investigate serious complaints such as torture and ill-treatment independently of the law enforcement bodies is on the agenda of the Parliament.
Furthermore, the “Draft Law on the Establishment of Anti-discrimination and Equality Board” to fight against all types of discrimination has been prepared by the Ministry of Interior with the participation of relevant stakeholders and has been submitted to the Council of Ministers.
The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) has published on 31 March 2011 its report on its fifth periodic visit to Turkey, which took place from 4 to 17 June 2009, together with the response of the Turkish Government. Both documents have been made public at the request of the Turkish authorities. The report stated that CPT’s delegation gained the distinct impression that the downward trend seen in recent years in both the incidence and the severity of ill- treatment by law enforcement officials was continuing. It also referred to Turkey’s implementation of the recommendations made by the Committee. In response to a specific recommendation made by the Committee in this regard, the Turkish authorities have issued a circular to all central and provincial police units inter alia emphasizing the need to avoid ill- treatment and excessive use of force.
A National Action Plan for Fundamental Rights is under preparation by a Task Force under the coordination of Secretariat General for EU Affairs. This document will further support the implementation of fundamental rights through a more uniform and integrated approach.
The Draft National Action Plan for Fundamental Rights includes the following sections: - Human Rights Institutions - Fight against Torture and Ill-treatment - The right to respect for private and family life
7 - Freedom of expression - Freedom of assembly and association - Socially vulnerable Persons and Persons with Disability - Anti-Discrimination - Gender Equality and Women’s Rights - Children’s Rights
Furthermore, the right to demand the protection of their personal data was included in the Constitution through the recent amendment. The “Draft Law on Data Protection” is on the agenda of the Justice Commission of the Parliament.
On civil-military relations, with the amendment to the Law on Establishment of Military Courts and Jurisdiction Procedure, which entered into force on 30 June 2010, non-judge members are removed from military courts. This enabled the formation of military courts only with professional military judges. The constitutional amendment package also regulated that military jurisdiction will be limited to military offenses, except in times of war. The Law on Court of Auditors entered into force on 19 December 2010. As regards anti-corruption, the Anti-corruption Strategy was prepared under the coordination of the Prime Ministry Inspection Board and approved by the Government in 2010. The time- frame for its implementation is 2010-2014.
Through the Prime Ministry Circular dated 5 December 2009, the Commission for Enhancing Transparency and Strengthening Fight against Corruption (inter-ministerial commission) and the Executive Board for Enhancing Transparency and Strengthening Fight against Corruption were established. In this context, the Commission gathers at least twice a year in order to provide the coordination and efficiency to achieve the objectives of the Strategy.
The Executive Board consisting of deputy undersecretaries of ministries and representatives from two NGOs have held five meetings and drafted the detailed action plan of the Strategy. The detailed Action Plan has been approved by the Inter-ministerial Commission on 12 April 2010. "Action Plan" includes; Prevention Measures (18 measures), Measures to Increase Sanctions (3 measures), Measures to Increase Public Awareness (7 measures). The Law on Court of Auditors, which is also a priority for the Strategy, entered into force on 19 December 2010.
Regarding freedom of expression, with a view to aligning the legal framework with the standards and principles set by the European Convention on Human Rights, a new Penal Code was enacted in 2005, bringing also a more liberal approach to the freedom of expression and media issues.
Freedom of expression and media are safeguarded by the Constitution and other relevant legislation in Turkey. Article 301 of the Penal Code was further amended in 2008 in order to overcome certain difficulties that were faced in the implementation. As a result, there is a substantial decrease (97.3 %) in the number of cases opened.
A Draft Law on Freedom of Expression and the Media has been prepared by the Ministry of Justice after broad consultancy with members of NGOs and academicians. The Draft aims to ensure proper implementation of some provisions of the Penal Code in line with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. It is currently on the agenda of the Parliament.
8 The following amendments are intended to be introduced by the Draft Law; - The penalty for unlawful wiretapping and violation of private life envisaged under Article 132, 133 and 134 increases. - Commission of these offences by press is not deemed as a reason for aggravation. - Revealing information in any way which becomes available as a result of these offences cannot constitute an offence unless limit of press freedom is overstepped. (Article 139) - Elements of the offence “influencing those performing judicial duties” are redefined to make it more concrete. (Article 277) - The elements of the offence “violation of confidentiality of investigation” are made clear. Judicial fine is introduced as an alternative to custodial sentence. Commission of the offence is not deemed as a reason to aggravate. Publishing news regarding investigations and proceedings cannot constitute an offence unless limit of press freedom is overstepped. (Article 285) - The elements of the offence “attempt to influence fair trial” are made clear. Judicial fine is introduced as an alternative to custodial sentence. (Article 288)
Turkey has come a long way from the arrests, torture and disappearance of journalists of the past. Today, journalists enjoy their undeniable rights. I would like to remind you that one of the first reforms of our government when it came to power was to introduce a more liberal Press Law.
For more than two years, Turkey has been investigating the complex “Ergenekon Case” which aims to reveal the deeply enrooted plots against the democratic system in Turkey. The case is prosecuted by independent prosecutors and judges, who frequently emphasize that no outside force, including the government, can influence or obstruct them.
Since independence of the judiciary is unquestionable according to universal norms, the issue at stake should be discussed within the framework of this principle. No outside force, including the executive, can interfere with the merits of the case or seek to influence the prosecutors. In this particular case, the prosecutors have clearly stated that they have evidence on the arrest of the journalists, which links the journalists to the Ergenekon Terrorist group. The judiciary maintained that the arrest is not related to their professional activity, the books or articles that they have published or plan to publish, and least of all to their opinions.
We continue to work on the reforms regarding freedom of expression. Turkey is in dialogue with the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media regarding issues related to freedom of expression and freedom of media.
Concerning access to internet, “Law on Regulation of Information Dissemination via Internet and Prevention of Crimes Committed through such Dissemination” entered into force on 23 May 2007. The basic purpose of the Law is “to fight against certain and limited categories of crimes”. It never aims at limiting freedom of expression. “Notice and takedown” principle applies in the removal procedure of the harmful content from the Internet. In case of a disagreement on the removal of the harmful content, the case can be taken to courts. Judges are the ones who are entitled to decide on the relevant cases.
9 Turkey recently (10 November 2010) signed the Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe. This Convention will be useful in better implementing the limitations on illegal internet content.
Concerning YouTube, a court decision has enabled unlimited access to the content available on this website.
The democratic opening process aims to raise the democratic standards in Turkey for all our citizens in an embracing manner, irrespective of their ethnic origin, belief, gender or political preference. It has several dimensions, including the Alevi and Roma opening processes. We have taken many very important steps concerning the comprehensive democratic opening process and are always examining what more can be done in line with our constitution and national laws.
Through respective legislative amendments, oral or written propaganda in languages other than Turkish during the election period is allowed and restrictions on the rights of prisoners or their visitors to speak their own language or dialects have been lifted. Establishment of institutes in different languages and dialects that our citizens use has become possible. With the Decree of the Council of Ministers dated 12 October 2009 and No. 27419, the “Institute of Living Languages” has been established in the Mardin Artuklu University. In January 2011, the Department of Kurdish Language and Literature was decided to be established. Students will be enrolling in the undergraduate program next semester.
Freedom of religion is firmly guaranteed by the Constitution and relevant legislation based on the legacy and the secular principles upon which the Republic is founded. The ongoing reform process that has been carried out with resolve and transparency in recent years has also led to further improvements in the legislation concerning religious freedoms. In line with our tradition of religious tolerance, we are taking care of the current issues of our citizens with different faiths, with whom a constructive and consistent dialogue is ongoing in the framework of the Reform Monitoring Group. Comprehensive meetings were held twice in 2010, with the participation of representatives of 11 different religious groups. A Prime Ministry Circular, aiming to ensure that every citizen benefits fully from equal rights came into force on 13 May 2010. The circular confirmed that all Turkish citizens from different religious communities constitute an inseparable part of Turkey, urging all related government institutions and offices to act with utmost diligence for the absolute elimination of problems encountered by the non-Muslim minorities.
Non-Muslim places of worship are administered by their own associations or foundations. Property rights regarding places of worship rest with the real or legal persons that have founded them. There are more than 315 places of worship belonging to non-Muslim communities, including 53 churches run by foreigners residing in Turkey.
Foreign clergymen are able to serve in places of worship in Turkey. More than 100 foreign clergymen have been registered in Turkey to serve in places of worship with relevant working permit. 12 Greek Orthodox clerics were granted Turkish citizenship in autumn 2010 to facilitate the functioning of the Patriarchate and its Holy Synod.
Religious ceremonies held in the historical Sumela Monastery and in the Surp Hac Armenian Church on Akdamar Island have been important steps for strengthening the climate of
10 tolerance and mutual understanding. Textbooks used in religious culture and ethics courses have been reviewed with a view to giving information on religions and belief systems other than Islam.
Through the Alevi opening, which is being coordinated by Minister of State Faruk Çelik, the issues of our Alevi citizens are being taken care of. A series of workshops have been instrumental in openly discussing the issues and identifying possible solutions. The final report, which is the end result of this process was released in March 2011.
As regards property rights, the Law on Foundations further improved the situation of non- Muslim community foundations’ international activities, the registration of their immovable properties, as well as their representation at the Foundation Council. The issues arising from the immovable properties of non-Muslim community foundations are being addressed within the framework of the new Law on Foundations. Efforts have been extended towards resolving the problems related to immovable properties transferred to third parties.
Since the entry into Law on Foundations, 14 non-Muslim community foundations have acquired 22 real estate properties (6 of them were bought by 4 foundations, 16 of them were donated to 10 foundations). 9 non-Muslim community foundations have received cash donations from abroad. The Foundations Assembly has permitted the conversion of 10 real estate properties, which had been classified as schools, into income-earning rental property. Directorate General for Foundations (DGF) gave positive opinion on the applications of 32 Foundations, which demanded from the courts to widen their constituencies for board elections. The evaluation process for the applications made in accordance with Provisional Article 7 of the Law on Foundations continues. In this context, 181 property disputes have been settled to date. In line with the Law No. 5737, 150 property disputes have been settled through “rectification of name” procedure. The Foundations Council, at present, has one member (Mr. Pandeli Laki Vingas) elected by the representatives of the non-Muslim community foundations. He participates at the Council meetings regularly since 2009.
With regard to the Mor Gabriel Monastery, the cadastral surveys recently carried out in the vicinity of the Monastery in Midyat/Mardin, have been the subject of judicial disputes. The cadastral survey of the region was carried out on the basis of field maps dating back to 1956, forestry plans and aerial photographs taken in 1986. At present, there are two walls encircling the Monastery. There are disputes concerning the land “de facto” occupied by the Monastery in and outside the walls. There are three lawsuits regarding the Monastery. The legal process has not yet been completed.
At the hearings of the First case on June 24, 2009, the Cadastral Court ruled that the forest land claimed by the Monastery belongs to the Treasury. The Monastery has applied to the Court of Appeal regarding this case. However, the Court of Appeal decided in favour of the decision of the Cadastral Court. The Monastery appealed against this ruling.
Regarding the second case, the Midyat Court has decided in favour of the Monastery, ruling that approximately 273 decares of land has to be registered for the Monastery. The Court of Appeal has ruled against the decision of the Midyat Court. The Monastery appealed against this ruling.
11 The third case is against the Monastery due to illegal occupation of forest land. The decision regarding this case will be given based on the decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the above-mentioned case.
Concerning the claims by headmen of the neighboring villages against the Monastery, Midyat Public prosecutor has dropped the cases on 16 December 2008.
At present the Monastery is fully functioning and there is no limitation on its activities. Allegations claiming that the Monastery is under pressure are totally unfounded.
In line with the European Court of Human Rights judgement, Büyükada Orphanage has been transferred to the Patriarchate on 29 November 2010.
Our Government has the political will to address some demands raised by our citizens of the Greek Orthodox minority as well as the Patriarchate. We understand the need of the Greek Orthodox Community to train its clergy and, with a constructive spirit, we are exploring a viable solution to re-open the Heybeliada Theological School, on satisfactory terms to all interested parties.
As to the title of “ecumenical”, due to its secular nature, the claim of “ecumenical” status is not relevant for Turkey. It is an issue of the Orthodox Church. “Ecumenical” is not a legal term but a theological title. We cannot be obliged to acknowledge it and thus its usage would not bring along any privilege or exemption to the Patriarchate. In fact, Prime Minister Erdoğan put our understanding clearly during the press conference held during his visit to Athens last May.
In fact, the opinion of the Venice Commission dated 12-13 March inter alia reads “(…) it cannot be inferred from the European Convention on Human Rights that the Turkish authorities are obliged themselves to actively use this title when referring to the Patriarchate, nor to formally recognize it (...)”.
From time to time, the ongoing reform process and our concrete achievements on the freedom of religion are being praised by the leaders of non-Muslim communities as well.
As regards the penal framework, obstructing the exercise of the freedom of religion, belief and conviction constitutes an offence according to Article 115 of the Turkish Penal Code. Furthermore, incitement to religious hatred, public denigration of any group on the basis of their religion or sect as well as defamation of religious values is penalized under Article 216 of the Turkish Penal Code.
Dissemination of religious beliefs or convictions is not prohibited under the Turkish law. To the contrary, preventing a person from disseminating or expressing their religious beliefs through the use of force or threat constitutes an offence under the Turkish Penal Code.
As regards persons belonging to minorities, inter-faith dialogue and harmony have deep roots in Turkey. The Republic of Turkey adheres with great dedication to its legacy of multi-faith tolerance and cultural pluralism. Based on this legacy and the secular principles upon which the Republic is founded, freedom of religious belief, conscience and conviction in Turkey is
12 firmly guaranteed by the Constitution and relevant legislation. The ongoing reform process has also led to further improvements.
Regarding the property issues of Greek nationals, I would like to express that with regard to acquisition of immovable property in Turkey by right of inheritance, Turkey acts within the scope of “reciprocity” which is a fundamental principle of the international law. Relevant legislation (Article 35 of the Land Registration Code) prescribes reciprocity, both with regard to de jure and de facto situation. Thus, regarding acquisition of immovable property in Turkey by right of inheritance, for each case the national legislation of the applicant and its de facto applications shall be considered by taking into account the date of death of the legator.
Regarding our Roma citizens, a TAIEX Seminar entitled "Roma Citizens in Turkey" was held in December 2010 by EUSG and the European Commission. Over 250 representatives of relevant public institutions, NGOs, international organizations together with our Roma citizens participated in the seminar and their problems were discussed. A discriminatory remark regarding our Roma citizens was removed from the Law on Residence and Travel of Foreigners in Turkey on 19 January 2011.
As regards women’s rights, the latest Constitutional Amendment further enhanced the legal basis of women’s rights by introducing the concept of “positive discrimination”.
Established on 24 March 2009 in the Turkish Grand National Assembly, the Commission for Equal Opportunity between Women and Men, whose primary goal is to contribute to the protection and development of women’s rights, continues to monitor developments on this issue at the national and international levels. A National Monitoring and Coordination Board on Employment of Women has been established to increase women’s employment, and to ensure equal opportunities.
Turkey continues to fight eagerly with violence against women. The Turkish Penal Code penalizes killings motivated by honour with aggravated life imprisonment. The National Action Plan on the Fight against Domestic Violence towards Women covering 2007 – 2010 has been extended. The number of shelters for women is 67, 16 of which were opened in the years 2010-2011. The trainings on gender equality continue in different cities throughout the country.
In the area of children’s rights, the Law stipulating that children charged with terror-related crimes shall be tried only in juvenile courts and that aggravated reasons envisaged in Anti- Terror Law shall not be applied to these children entered into force on 25 July 2010. Accordingly, those children who were serving prison sentences or being held in pretrial detention on terrorism-related charges were immediately released.
Turkey has signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography and the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflicts. In line with the objectives of the World Summit for Children, global compliance with the principles and provisions of this Convention remains vital. Though almost all the world’s nations including Turkey are party to the Convention, Turkey wishes to see an increase in the relatively low number of State Parties to the two Optional Protocols.
13 Turkey also signed and ratified the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Additional Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air as well as the Additional Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and its Optional Protocol (with regard to the girl child), as well as ILO Conventions against Child Labour (Conventions No. 138 and 182) have also been signed and ratified by Turkey.
The relevant parts of the Turkish Civil Code, Labour Code, Criminal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Code on Enforcement of the Penalties and Security Measures, Child Protection Code and the Code on Persons with Disabilities were amended in line with the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
On World Children’s Rights Day, on 20th of November 2009, a Children’s Rights internet site was inaugurated under the auspices of the Children’s Rights Monitoring Committee of the Turkish Parliament (Turkish Grand National Assembly). With this site, believed to be the first and the only one among world parliaments, complaints about violations of children’s rights can be directly submitted to parliamentarians.
With regard to trade union rights, the recent amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to form labor unions and the right to conclude collective labor agreements, including the right to conclude collective agreements for civil servants, in line with the related charters of International Labor Organization and the judgments of European Court of Human Rights.
The social and economic development of the Southeast Anatolia Region is one of our priorities. Efforts to this end are made through the “Ninth Development Plan” and Southeastern Anatolia Project. The Turkish Government is resolved to address the issue of Internally Displaced Persons in Turkey. We are determined to ensure the effective implementation of the “Law on the Compensation of Losses Resulting from Terrorist Acts and the Measures Taken against Terrorism”. To this end, “Damage Assessment Commissions” are working to process the claims for compensation. As for the land-mines issues, Turkey fulfills its obligations stemming from the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. Work continues for demining activities starting from our borders with Syria.
With the Law No. 3175 and dated 26 March 1985, Temporary Village Guard (TVG) was established by making amendment in Article 74 of Village Code No. 442. In time, Temporary Village Guards continued being the greatest assistant of the security forces.
The declining trend in the number of TVGs is as follows: 2001: 58.750 2009: 47.854 2010: 44.830
Having been assigned road security duties against terrorists’ actions of laying mines/improvised explosive devices on roads, currently employed TVGs provide the security
14 of life and property of our citizens living in the villages in the regions that the terror actions are intensive.
Regarding fight against terrorism, Law on the adoption of European Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism has been enacted on 12 March 2011. EU members and institutions should enhance dialogue and cooperation with Turkey and adopt further measures for the prevention of any PKK related activity in the EU territory. The success of the fight against PKK terrorism depends on efforts to put an end to the PKK activities in Europe.
VISA ISSUE
The EU visa implementation to Turkish citizens has increasingly become an unbearable travel barrier. In other words, the rigid visa procedures hamper the interaction between Turkish and the EU societies and create a negative image of the EU in the minds of our people.
The extensive list of supporting documents, the long waiting periods before the first visa application to the outsourcing agencies as well as the length of duration between the application and final decision can be enumerated as major problems. In addition, the applicants from different corners of Turkey need to travel long distances to reach the Consulates.
As several court rulings in Europe also underline, the legal interpretation supports the visa- free travel of Turkish citizens. As a precedent in this regard, the Soysal-Savatlı decision of European Court of Justice on 19 February 2009, leaves no doubt that the current visa policy of European Union towards Turkey lacks legal basis. This fact has been reconfirmed by recent rulings of the German and Dutch Courts.
The citizens of Turkey, a candidate country having association relations with the EU for almost half a century, conducting accession negotiations for five years, implementing a Customs Union for 15 years should be provided with visa liberalization. This is the sole framework in doing away with the current problems.
Turkish citizens should no more be subject to the visa procedures of 30 years ago, as Turkey is not the same country of 30 years ago. At a time when the EU granted the perspective of visa-free regime for a number of countries, including Russia, Ukraine, Georgia and Western Balkans, Turkey does not deserve a discriminatory treatment. On various occasions we have made it clear that we are ready to take all necessary steps with a view to meeting the benchmarks specified in the road map once the visa liberalization dialogue is started.
Undoubtedly the process towards a visa free regime for Turkish citizens travelling to the Schengen area will take time.
In fact, Turkey has taken all necessary steps to encourage the Council to mandate the Commission in this direction. We introduced the electronic passports with biometric security measures in June 2010. We have re-energized the negotiations on Readmission Agreement, worked hard in good faith, put forward creative ideas to settle the remaining disputes and finalized the negotiations in January 2011. Furthermore, we have achieved considerable
15 progress in the field of integrated border management and indicated our will to make further progress in cooperation with the EU.
While we bring into life a number of measures and take significant steps, we expect the Council to deal the first blow to the visa barrier between our societies by mandating the Commission to prepare the road map for visa liberalization. The Commission has the necessary toolbox to request an official mandate to this end. The European Commission is the only institution that has the right to propose amendments to the Council Regulation 539/2001, listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement. By the same token, it is the only institution to request an official mandate to start the visa liberalization dialogue and prepare the associated roadmap leading to the visa-free regime.
Nevertheless, it was disappointing that the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 24 February 2011 did not mandate the Commission to launch a visa dialogue with Turkey aiming at the establishment of visa-free regime for Turkish citizens. The Council Conclusions created a sense of frustration among our citizens and bureaucrats who worked hard in the areas covered by Chapter 24, yet another chapter whose opening criteria have not been communicated to Turkey.
The Visa Code is not an option for us to remedy the existing problems. Currently, the EU should put an end to the unfavourable conditions concerning the visa applications of Turkish citizens anyway. Any dialogue suggestion referring to or implying the Visa Code falls short of our expectations set for meaningful talks on visa-free regime for our citizens. We believe that only when the political mandate has operational results and clear target can this dialogue be meaningful. We have made it known since the outset that we would initial the Readmission Agreement only after such a clear mandate is given to the Commission. We expect this target to be formally specified at the Conclusions of the upcoming Council meeting in June 2011.
Certain member states refer to the threat of illegal migration when they make their case against the mandate for visa liberalization. To start with, in addition to our common efforts to curb illegal migration, not least the finalization of Readmission Agreement, the current outlook of illegal migration in our region will gradually improve once the elements of road map are implemented on the ground in cooperation with the European Commission and Member States. In other words, the visa liberalization process will create a win-win situation for both sides.
Second, Turkey is a centre of attraction and advancing in all fields. The conditions of 30 years ago no more exist. More and more Turkish citizens return to Turkey as many new employment opportunities flourish in all sectors. As the official German statistics demonstrate, there has been an inverse trend in population movements, including the asylum seekers, between Germany and Turkey since 2006.
Notwithstanding the outcome of the Council of February 2011, Turkey is determined to tackle the common challenge of illegal migration. So far, we have kept our word by finalizing the Readmission Agreement negotiations, introducing electronic passports with biometric security features and drafting the "Law on Foreigners and International Protection". We will continue to implement effective regulations such as integrated border management. However, we expect the EU to take necessary steps in parallel and remove the visa issue from our
16 agenda. Any improvement in this area will have a multiplier effect on many aspects of Turkey-EU relations.
As regards good neighbourly relations,
Turkey continues to be fully committed to good neighborly relations, and to respect the territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders of all its neighbors, including Greece. Turkey is resolved to explore every avenue to attain a comprehensive and lasting settlement to all differences and problems with her neighbors.
In this regard, Turkey stands ready to continue to work with Greece towards the settlement of the well-known Aegean issues through peaceful means in accordance with international law. Turkey does not rule out from the outset any peaceful settlement method contained in the UN Charter Article 33, including having recourse, if necessary, to International Court of Justice or other third party solutions based on the mutual consent of both parties.
Turkey reiterates its goodwill and political resolve to remain attached to the principles of good neighborly relations, avoidance of any kind of threat, source of friction and unilateral actions to maintain the positive agenda and atmosphere conducive to comprehensive settlement of differences with Greece with the understanding that they are reciprocated.
Indeed, those principles are already embedded in the agreements governing the relations between Greece and Turkey and outlining framework for the comprehensive settlement of disputes. The two countries have been taking up those issues in detail since March 2002, through exploratory talks of 50 rounds so far.
Turkey or any country for that matter could not challenge the equitable and peaceful use of rights by another state bestowed upon it by international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Turkey’s position vis-à-vis the UNCLOS is widely known. Although we agree with the general intent and most of its provisions reflecting customary law issues, Turkey has been unable to become party to it, owing to its shortcomings which might have a direct impact on the delimitation of maritime jurisdiction areas in an enclosed sea where special geographic situations and circumstances prevail. Yet, the case in point has nothing to do with Turkey’s non-party status or the Convention’s insufficient safeguards for conflicting interests and sensitivities stemming from special circumstances.
Concerning Maritime Delimitation,
Since 2003 the Greek Cypriot Administration has been pursuing a policy in the Eastern Mediterranean through concluding bilateral maritime delimitation agreements, conducting oil/gas exploration and issuing permits for such activities around the Island. The continental shelves and exclusive economic zones in the Mediterranean are yet to be thoroughly defined and delimited. This mostly stems from the fact that there exists a host of complicated and interlinked issues as regards the maritime jurisdiction areas. Turkey holds the opinion that delimitations of the continental shelf or the exclusive economic zone in a semi-enclosed sea like the Mediterranean should be effected by agreement by respecting the rights and interests of the third countries concerned under the basic principles of international law.
17 The Greek Cypriot Administration does not represent in law or in fact the Turkish Cypriots and Cyprus as a whole. The Greek Cypriot Administration is not entitled to negotiate and conclude international agreements as well as adopt laws regarding the exploitation of natural resources on behalf of the entire Island.
As such, these activities of the Greek Cypriots cannot be considered in a vacuum since they have a direct bearing on sensitive sovereignty and governance issues. These unilateral activities compromise and prejudge the Turkish Cypriots’ existing and inherent equal rights over the sea areas of the Island. Being one of the issues dealt with by the ongoing comprehensive settlement negotiations, offshore exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbon resources would be best left to the decision of the joint parliament of the future partnership government.
We are determined, together with the Turkish Cypriots, to continue to raise objections, through diplomatic and political channels against these unilateral actions. It is our earnest expectation that all would act with common sense, avoid tension causing unilateral activities and strive for enhancing prospect for a final and comprehensive settlement to the Cyprus problem especially at this critical junction.
The Greek Cypriots’ actions do not only disregard the Turkish Cypriots’ rights but also challenge Turkey’s maritime jurisdiction areas in the eastern Mediterranean to the west of the Island. Turkey has legitimate rights and interests in the Eastern Mediterranean, particularly to the west of longitude 32°16’18”E. This position is consistent with relevant rules of international law as well as established customary practices. Turkey attaches importance to maintaining peace and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean.
As regards Cyprus issue,
1. Turkey, as a guarantor and motherland, has been declaring in a most open and clear manner its full support for a comprehensive settlement on the Island as soon as possible. Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot side have adopted a constructive approach towards every comprehensive settlement proposal put forth by the UN, as is well-recorded in the UNSG’s reports. Turkey gave strong support to the UNSG’s settlement aim before the end of 2010 and the Turkish Cypriots’ commitment to this aim was also confirmed by the UNSG and his Special Advisor Mr. Downer.
In the course of the ongoing UN-sponsored negotiations, progress has so far been achieved thanks to comprehensive and constructive proposals of the Turkish Cypriots. Like the comprehensive package proposal on the Governance and Power Sharing chapter President Talat presented on 4 January 2010, President Eroğlu presented a comprehensive package proposal on the Property chapter on 6 September 2010, the constructiveness of which was also appreciated by the UN. The UNSG stated in his report of 24 November 2010 that “the Turkish Cypriots have put forward fresh initiatives”. The Greek Cypriot side, however, does not seem to genuinely desire a successful conclusion to the comprehensive negotiation process.
The two leaders met with the UNSG in New York on 18 November 2010 and in Geneva on 26 January 2011. During both meetings President Eroğlu proposed road maps for the way forward, only to meet with Mr. Christophias’ negative reaction. During the Geneva meeting
18 Mr. Christophias even refused to accept a date for the next tripartite meeting. This frustrated the UN. In his report of 24 November following the tripartite meeting in New York, the UNSG had clearly expressed his disappointment that the expectations on reaching a comprehensive settlement by the end of 2010 were not met. He had stressed that talks cannot be an open-ended process and that “talks for the sake of talks are ultimately not productive”, drawing attention to the serious risk that if substantive agreement across all negotiation chapters cannot be concluded ahead of the elections in Turkey and the Greek Cypriot side, the negotiations could founder fatally. In his report of 3 March 2011, the UNSG once again underlined that “more must be done to prevent the negotiations from stalling and drifting endlessly”, that “the negotiations cannot be an open-ended process” and that we cannot “afford interminable talks for the sake of talks.”
It is in fact with this understanding that the Turkish side, in stark contrast to the Greek Cypriot side, has spent and continues to spend maximum efforts for a comprehensive solution in the ongoing process. But the Greek Cypriots, while stalling and employing delaying tactics in the day-to-day negotiations, are trying to manipulate international public opinion and get everyone to accept the idea that a solution is nowhere in sight. Their real objective seems to be to prevent any positive development before their EU Presidency of 2012 and Mr. Christophias’ elections in February 2013 which will follow.
Unfortunately, the period following the Geneva tripartite meeting in January was not put to good use. Dragging their feet even more due to their general elections on 22 May, the Greek Cypriots spread rumors that the negotiations would be put on hold for three months in April. This had not been discussed with the Turkish Cypriot side or the UN. Though he confirmed in his report of 3 March that after sufficient progress he will convene a high-level meeting, at this stage the UNSG does not believe that it will be possible to convene even another tripartite meeting before the end of June. Thus the negotiations on the Island are approaching an impasse in the absence of a big push that would help to overcome this stalemate. As former UNSG Annan stressed in his report of 28 May 2004, the Greek Cypriots must first decide whether they truly want a partnership with the Turkish Cypriots. In fact, enough ground has been gained in the negotiations to reach a solution in the shortest possible time, if only there is sufficient will to do so. What we need now is a big push and to hold a high-level meeting with the two sides and the guarantors, which will make a comprehensive agreement possible. A just and lasting comprehensive settlement is the real remedy to all problems related to Cyprus issue. It will greatly contribute to peace and stability in the whole area of the Eastern Mediterranean and shall be to the benefit of the all. It is evident that a member with UN troops and a 47-year-old unresolved issue on the UN Security Council agenda does not add much to the prestige of the EU either.
2. The ongoing negotiations, if successfully concluded with a comprehensive settlement agreement, will result with the establishment of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with political equality. The new Partnership will have a Federal Government with a single international personality, as well as a Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot Constituent State, which will be of equal status, as agreed in the 23 May 2008 joint statement of the two leaders. Turkey already expressed its readiness to establish relations with the new partnership state that will emerge following the comprehensive settlement.
3. Until a final and equitable solution to the Cyprus question is found, the participation of the Greek Cypriots in the work of some international organizations is unacceptable for Turkey.
19 The Greek Cypriot Administration does not represent the whole island. They cannot claim authority, jurisdiction or sovereignty over the Turkish Cypriots, who have equal status. Therefore, we believe that the Greek Cypriots should not be encouraged to exploit these international platforms for their political ends. This issue should be considered as part of a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue.
4. The Cyprus settlement and Turkey’s EU accession process are two separate issues. The unilateral EU-membership of the Greek Cypriot side despite its rejection of the UN Comprehensive Settlement Plan in the 2004 referenda was a big mistake. It further alienated the Greek Cypriot side from the settlement aim. Today we are all facing the complications emanating from this decision. The EU has responsibility for the current situation. Therefore, Turkey has difficulty understanding the EU’s persistently unidimensional approach.
Cyprus is an island with two sides. We should not only be focusing on the concerns of the Greek Cypriots. The EU committed itself to put an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots as early as 26 April 2004, following the referenda held on the UN Comprehensive Settlement Plan. This was also in line with the call made by the UN Secretary-General in his report of 28 May 2004 and there was no conditionality attached to that. The Commission prepared a Direct Trade Regulation, a Financial Aid Regulation, and the Green Line Regulation for intra-Island trade. However, the implementation of the Financial Aid Regulation and the Green Line Regulation continues to be hindered by the Greek Cypriots1. The impact of the Direct Trade Regulation, even if it were adopted, would be limited to returning to the pre-1994 situation, when the Turkish Cypriot side actually had preferential trade with the EU. However, despite the EU Commission’s well-intentioned efforts in view of its adoption, the Greek Cypriot side spared no effort for preventing the adoption of this Regulation and as a result the last vote held on 18 October 2010 in the European Parliament once again left the fate of the Regulation to the discretion of the Greek Cypriot side. This demonstrates yet again that the Greek Cypriots are determined to hinder the Turkish Cypriots’ development at every possible opportunity, despite the fact that they are engaged in UN- sponsored negotiations to establish a new partnership and share a common future. This is another reason to question their sincerity about a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue. Turkey’s restrictions toward the Greek Cypriots are directly linked with the Greek Cypriots’ obstinate policy of isolating the Turkish Cypriots.
Turkey declared its readiness to sign the Additional Protocol in December 2004 and has fulfilled that commitment in a timely manner. Regarding the implementation of it, there seems to be difference of interpretation between Turkey and the EU. As a matter of fact, in practice there is no impediment for free circulation of products from any EU member within the framework of the Turkey-EU Customs Union. Indeed, the statistics show that there is circulation of products from all EU members.
The Cyprus issue should not continue to poison Turkey-EU relations. Addressing the source of the problem is the shortest and healthiest way to attain a solution. There are ways of
1 Regarding the Financial Aid Regulation, the Greek Cypriots prevent construction projects in the North which would require materials to be imported using Turkish Cypriot ports. As for the Green Line Regulation, despite the amendments adopted in the Council Regulation (EC) No. 587/2008, the Greek Cypriot side is using every opportunity to block the Turkish Cypriot products. They do not want any names or labels on the products. Even the telephone numbers with a Turkish international code are being used as an excuse to ban the products from being exported to the South. The advertisements made by the Turkish Cypriots are being prevented in the Greek Cypriot media.
20 overcoming potential difficulties in this field, while also contributing to the settlement aim. This was the purpose of our Action Plan of 24 January 2006 concerning the simultaneous lifting of all isolations towards the Island by all concerned parties.2 It is therefore regrettable that the most recent initiative taken in collaboration with the EU Commission and the Belgian EU Presidency in order to fully implement the Additional Protocol has not moved forward due to the Greek Cypriot side’s attitude. We are always open to contribute to efforts and initiatives that would make it possible.
ECONOMIC CRITERIA
In the current vulnerable global economic environment, it is impossible to be immune from several risk factors for any country. Turkey has also been exposed to various regional and global risks since 2008, as a country integrated to global economy but was able to take precautionary actions as deemed necessary. Hence, Turkey was able to maintain its robust economic position.
The crisis management through necessary fiscal and monetary policies together with successful expectations management via timely Medium Term Programs (MTP) resulted in a strong recovery phase. The Turkish economy entered into a recovery period starting with the second quarter of 2009 and was out of the crisis in the fourth quarter of 2009, where positive growth rate was recorded. Together with the improvement in confidence and in credit conditions, the economy continued to expand in 2010 where the GDP growth was 8.9 percent in the whole year. Hence, the GDP growth rate of 2010 exceeded the rate of 6.8 projected in the Medium Term Program (MTP), announced on 10 October 2010. In this period, Turkey became one of the highest growing economies.
The strong growth trend has been continuing in the first quarter of 2011 as well. On the supply side of the economy, industrial production increased by 18.9 percent in January 2011. In this way, the tradable components of industrial production, which diminished in 2009, exceeded the pre-crisis levels in most of the sectors of industrial production as of the end of 2010 and the beginning of 2011.
The increase in capacity utilization rates and business confidence index in the first quarter of 2011 also give signs of a continuity of strong growth rate for supply side of the economy.
At the demand side of the economy, the increase in domestic durable good productions and sales, improvements in consumer confidence and rising real consumer credits indicate the high contribution of the consumption expenditures to the growth rate in the first quarter of 2011. Similarly, increase in imports of intermediate and capital goods, production of investment goods, real trade credits and sales of commercial vehicles point out to the improvement in the investment expenditures.
In the crisis period, unemployment rates raised mainly due to increases in labor participation rates. Parallel to the measures taken and economic recovery, unemployment rate moderated after March 2009 and decreased to 11.9 percent in 2010. In 2009, despite the deterioration of economic environment, Turkey was able to create 83 thousand new jobs and in 2010 this
2 Published as a UN Document: (S/2006/48)
21 number increased to 1.3 million. It is anticipated that the economic recovery will continue to be reflected in the labor market in the forthcoming period.
In 2010 the headline inflation was 6.4 percent, which is the lowest yearly value in the last 20 years. Headline inflation further decreased in the first quarter of 2011. As of March 2011, inflation was 0.42 percent and yearly figure fell to 4 percent. Although inflationary risks exist globally due to higher commodity prices, as the pass through effect is indirect in Turkey and the weight of these products in headline inflation is limited, we do not expect an overshooting for the CBRT’s yearly inflation projection. Moreover, the inflationary effect of robust domestic demand is expected to be limited since the growth rate for 2011 is projected to be close to its potential.
The current account deficit is a structural problem of Turkey mainly due to her high energy dependency. That is why Turkey has been applying structural and medium term policies for reducing the dependency of intermediate goods imports. Energy sector reform program including issues such as nuclear energy, renewable energy, energy efficiency and privatization of distribution and generating companies has been carried out since 2003. A new investment incentive system and R&D and Innovation Support Program were put into practice aiming at increasing the competitive power as well as longer term capital inflows to the country. The Assessment Council on Export-Oriented Production Strategy was set up in order to develop strategies to increase the in-house production of intermediate goods. In addition, prudent fiscal policies and macro-prudential monetary policies are followed aiming at containing the domestic demand.
In 2010 and the first two months of 2011, weak external demand versus strong domestic demand has implied further deterioration in Turkey’s external position. High capability of exporters in market diversification restricted the decline in exports.
On the other hand, Turkey did not encounter any problem in the financing component of Balance of Payments. In 2010, capital inflows, excluding changes in reserves (CBRT and banks) were USD 43.9 billion. Portfolio investments and the rise in deposits in domestic banks became the main drivers of capital inflows. Capital inflows, excluding changes in reserves (CBRT and banks) were USD 2.9 billion in January 2011. The level of Central Bank reserves is quite robust, with USD 86.2 billion as of March 25, 2011, serving as an insurance for external shocks.
It is a fact that the quality of financing has deteriorated in a global scale since 2008 crisis. Due to tighter credit conditions, falling corporate profits and uncertainties in global economic growth, many companies postponed their investment decisions. Stemming from the weak performance of developed countries in the same period, in addition to the problems in their banking and financial problems, portfolio investments have been directed to developing countries, including Turkey. Moreover, the CDS level of Turkey is less than that of 12 EU countries whose country ratings are higher as of April 4. In such an attractive position for capital flows, the main aim of Turkey is to increase the quality of her external financing.
Measures to increase private saving ratio are being taken in addition to preserving fiscal discipline in order to decrease the saving gap. The recent macro-prudential policies applied by the CBRT intend to increase the quality of capital inflows to Turkey. The recent data on capital inflows imply that the investors tend to change their investment positions in Turkey in
22 favor of longer term instruments. Together with the macroeconomic performance and increased confidence to the economy, Turkey will get its share at an increased rate, once the FDI tendency gains momentum globally.
In 2010, performance in fiscal stance was better than Medium Term Program projections. Economic recovery has positively affected budget revenues, where together with the decline in interest payments and gradual exit from crisis measures, the central government budget deficit was TL 39.6 billion (3.6 percent of GDP) and remained below the MTP projection of TL 44.2 billion (4.0 percent of GDP). Primary surplus target was also met in 2010.
The EU defined debt stock to GDP was 41,6 percent in 2010, below the MTP estimation of 42,3 percent. Turkey is one of the best performing economies in controlling its budget deficit and debt burden. The increase in Turkey’s budget deficit and debt/GDP ratio in 2007-2010 period has been one of the lowest in Europe and this helped Turkey to differentiate herself from many of the advanced, as well as peer group countries.
The positive effects of the application of decisive fiscal discipline measures are observed in January-February period of 2011 as well. In this period, central government budget and primary balance posted TL 2.0 billion and TL 12.0 billion surpluses respectively.
Despite the global crisis, borrowing maturities were extended and borrowing costs were reduced in 2010. Average maturity of domestic borrowing which was 35.3 months in 2009 increased to 44.1 months and the annual average compounded interest rate of discounted Treasury auctions for government securities which was 11.6 percent in 2009 reduced to 8.1 percent.
As of 25 March 2011, the average maturity of domestic borrowing and average compounded interest rate of discounted Treasury auctions for government securities were 53.6 months and 7.8 percent respectively.
The Medium Term Program (2011-2013), our main policy document, and 2011 Budget targets do not imply any loosening in the fiscal stance. On the contrary, they are set in a way to increase fiscal discipline and build up fiscal space in order to create room for maneuver for the fiscal policy. Priorities of fiscal policy are set as enhancing confidence, increasing stability and predictability in the economy while contributing to increasing the resources available for private sector by reducing public sector deficits.
Turkey is renewing her strategy on fight against informality in order for both decreasing the informality in labor market and diminishing tax and premium losses which will contribute to the strength of fiscal position.
The IMF Fiscal Monitor, January 2011 update figures imply that, in terms of change in public debt stock and budget deficit between 2011 and 2013, Turkey stands in a favorable position compared to many of the advanced, as well as peer group countries in terms of declining her deficit and debt figures.
The banking sector maintained its robust position during the crisis period as well. Net profit of the sector, which increased by 50,4 percent in 2009, rose by 9.6 percent in 2010 and reached TL 22.1 billion. Net return on equity of the banking sector was 20.1 percent in 2010.
23 Capital adequacy ratio remained high with 18.4 percent as of January 2011 which is well above the legal rate of 8 percent and targeted ratio of 12 percent. FX net general position indicates the absence of foreign exchange risk. Although increased gradually in 2009, parallel to economic recovery the ratio of non-performing loans to total loans decreased to 3.4 percent as of February, 2011 and it is expected to further decrease in the forthcoming period.
On the monetary policy side, inflation targeting regime will be continued in the 2011-2013 period in compliance with the main objective of achieving price stability. The Central Bank will continue to supervise macroeconomic risks and financial stability in 2011 as usual, in line with its main objective of ensuring and sustaining price stability. The floating exchange rate regime will also continue in the forthcoming period within its ongoing framework.
Turkey has performed relatively better in terms of major macroeconomic aggregates during and after the global financial crisis. The current planning in terms of monetary and fiscal policy focuses on preserving macroeconomic stability and sustainable growth. On the other hand, given the continued vulnerabilities in the global environment, Turkey closely follows the developments and is ready to react with correct policy settings as quickly as possible where she foresees necessary.
ACQUIS
We attach great importance to the negotiation process both in terms of acquis alignment and in terms of political reforms. Unfortunately, the negotiation process is not proceeding, as it ought to be. Even though the case for Turkey’s membership is such a strong argument, the accession process has been facing resistance particularly led by certain Member States. 18 out of 22 chapters pending to be opened are blocked on political grounds.
Although more than 5 years have passed since the opening of accession negotiations, we still have not been informed on technical benchmarks of 10 chapters. The Commission asserts that it has prepared screening reports of 16 out of 17 suspended chapters. Screening reports of 9 chapters are still pending in the Council as some Member States block them on political grounds. We understand the principle of solidarity among Member States; what we do not understand is how the process is taken hostage by narrowly defined interests of some Member States.
Negotiation position papers of Turkey on Education and Culture and Economic and Monetary Policy had already been submitted in May 2006 and March 2007, respectively. Turkey is technically ready for opening of negotiations. The European Commission, the guardian of the Treaties, acknowledges Turkey’s readiness. Yet, there is no progress in the negotiations. We regret that political concerns of some Member States obscure a process that is technical by definition.
In short, the current situation does not reflect our performance in the reform process. Turkey has already demonstrated that it is capable of fulfilling the technical requirements swiftly as long as the process is not blocked by political considerations. It is a fact that the current situation has negative implications on the public support in Turkey for EU membership.
24 At the moment, we have only three chapters left that can be technically opened. However, these chapters have generally been negotiated during the final stages of the negotiations of former candidate countries.
In the field of “Chapter 8 - Competition Policy” significant progress has been achieved, since the last Association Council Meeting. Adoption of State Aid Law, submission of the Action Plan and the draft inventory of state aid schemes, establishment of a new independent State Aid Monitoring and Supervision Board and appointment of its members and staff are crucial steps that have been taken to open the chapter to negotiations.
Most of the remaining issues, particularly the steel issue, have been dealt with working in close cooperation with DG Competition in the first quarter of 2011.
Currently, our efforts are concentrated on drafting the secondary legislation and adopting it within the time frame stipulated in the State Aid Law. As for the existing state aid measures, The State Aid Authority, being already operational, will examine each measure and in case of non-compliance, the measure will be aligned in accordance with the procedure foreseen in the State Aid Law.
It is also worth to underline that in the previous enlargements, Competition Policy Chapter was always one of the chapters negotiated during the very final stages of negotiation. Moreover, the opening benchmarks notified to Turkey were in fact closing benchmarks for most of the recent Member States. Due to customs union, Turkey is obliged to fulfill these benchmarks prior to opening of the Chapter to negotiations, which in fact hampers the level playing field.
Taking into account this disadvantageous position, we believe that further coherence in this area could only be secured by opening the Chapter to negotiations.
Concerning “Chapter19 -Social Policy and Employment”, the Turkish government’s efforts to establish a consensus among social partners on trade union legislation continue. In the meantime, with the recent amendments in the Constitution, adopted on 12 September 2010 establishment of trade unions at enterprise level, collective labour agreements at various levels, the right to collective agreement for public servants and constitutional status for the Economic and Social Council were granted. As Civil Servants in Turkey do not work on contract basis, they are not granted the right of strike. Therefore, granting the right of strike to the Civil Servants before amending the Law on Civil Servants would deteriorate the balance established in the Law.
Concerning the second benchmark, the action plan was drafted and consulted with relevant institutions and social partners. Fourth draft of the Action plan was sent to the Commission on 30 April 2010. As far as we are informed, internal consultation/approval procedure in the Commission continues.
For “Chapter 5 - Public Procurement”, we are working to meet the opening benchmarks. The Ministry of Finance has been nominated as the responsible authority to ensure coherence of the policy during the pre-accession period. In addition, an ad-hoc unit was set up in 2009 under the Directorate of Budget and Financial Control, which is being restructured with a view to providing better coordination of public procurement reform. With these
25 achievements, we expect to meet the first benchmark. For the second benchmark, a comprehensive strategy was prepared by the relevant Turkish authorities and submitted to the Commission in March 2010. In May 2010, the Commission conveyed its comments related to the draft. Moreover, a classification study was carried out by the Public Procurement Authority, in which current exemptions were classified in terms of harmonization. In order to complete the alignment in this chapter, draft laws for the removal of exemptions, for utilities and public-private partnership were prepared.
In the area of “Chapter 1- Free Movement of Goods”, thanks to the Customs Union, alignment level of technical legislation is considerably high and advanced. Turkish institutions are fully concentrated on completing the implementation issues such as horizontal matters and market surveillance and studies are ongoing to fulfill the opening benchmarks. For example, regarding the introduction of mutual recognition principle into Turkish legislation, a draft by-law was prepared and expected to be put into force soon. Moreover, “National Market Surveillance Strategy Document (2010-2012)” dealing with fundamental structural problems of the market surveillance system has been prepared and adopted under the coordination of Undersecretariat of Foreign Trade by taking opinions of related public institutions, private sector and consumer organisations. This document was submitted to Commission’s opinion.
Mutual Recognition:
Turkey has prepared a draft Regulation on “Mutual Recognition in the Non-Harmonised Area” aiming to lay down the rules and procedures on the insertion of the mutual recognition clause into national technical regulations in the non-harmonised area and on the preparation and revision of these regulations in line with Turkey’s commitments under international agreements. The draft regulation also aims to transpose Regulation 764/2008/EC. The consultation process with the relevant Turkish authorities has been completed. The next step will be to send the draft to the European Commission for consultation.
“Chapter 3 -Right of Establishment and Freedom to Provide Services” is among the chapters that are suspended by the Council Decision concerning implementation of the Additional Protocol.
Notwithstanding, Turkey has initiated the preparation of a detailed harmonisation strategy to meet the technical opening benchmark. The strategy will address Services Directive related issues, mutual recognition of professional qualifications and postal services. As the complex content of this chapter cross-cuts most of the line ministries, EUSG carried out informative meetings for these institutions to clarify the provisions of the related Directives. Then, standard questionnaire have been disseminated to all stakeholders and a detailed screening of the national legislation vis-à-vis the EU acquis has started. We are currently receiving the responses from our institutions.
The results of this internal screening will evolve into a gap analysis, on the basis of which we will draft a feasible strategy that establishes the road-map of Turkey for adopting the EU acquis in very important service sectors. Therefore in this study, we attach more importance to the quality of the output rather than the pace of the progress. According to our plans, we will have a detailed picture of alignment with the acquis by mid-2011, which may lead to the preparation of a draft strategy document by the end of third quarter.
26 As regards “Chapter 4 -Free Movement of Capital”, we made progress concerning the removal of restrictions on foreign direct investment, by amending the Law No. 3984 on the Establishment of Radio and Television Enterprises and their Broadcasts on 15th of February, 2011. With this amendment, the maximum possible share of foreign capital in one private radio or television enterprise increased from 25% to 50%.
On the other hand, concerning the acquisition of real estate by natural and legal persons, Turkey has already requested 12 years transition period from the date of accession to the EU. In this respect, further information requested by the Commission has been mainly prepared by the relevant institutions and will be submitted in a short period of time. Moreover, we have launched an impact assessment project and according to the results and findings of this project an action plan will be prepared for the gradual liberalization of the acquisition of real estate by foreigners.
Concerning the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing, Turkey takes the necessary steps to fulfill the commitments in the related Action Plan. The work on harmonization with the EU Acquis and Financial Action Task Force recommendations are going on especially in the fields of strengthening the coordination among relevant institutions, improving the capacity of these institutions and effectively implementation of the harmonized legislation.
As is known, having fulfilled the opening benchmark, the Company Law Chapter is opened to negotiation on June 17, 2008. The Turkish Commercial Code was published in the Official Gazette of 14 February 2011 and will enter into force by July 2012. Since a great extent of Turkey’s commitments in the “Strategy Document” and “Negotiation Paper” is directly related to the enactment of this Code, this is a very significant step for the chapter. Therefore, studies are now focused on other actions for a timely accomplishment of our commitments submitted in the Strategy Document and the Position Paper.
In “Chapter 7-Intellectual Property Law” following submission of the Action Plan, which was the opening benchmark of the chapter, negotiations started on June 17, 2008. As for the closing benchmarks, “Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights” has been established in order to accelerate the dialogue between the EU and Turkey in this field. The first meeting of this Working Group will be held on 18 May 2011. In addition, studies are going on to complete the activities mentioned the Action Plan. For this purpose, “Intellectual and Industrial Property Coordination Board” was established with the participation of all public institutions.
In addition, studies of the relevant institutions are concentrated on issues regarding the implementation and enforcement of intellectual and industrial property rights. In order to strengthen the administrative capacities of the enforcement units, along with the executed projects, internal training activities have been continuing.
The issues regarding the implementation and enforcement of intellectual and industrial property rights are on the path to be completed soon.
In “Chapter 10 - Information Society and Media”, which was formally opened for negotiations on 19 December 2008, there are five technical closing benchmarks. The first
27 three closing benchmarks are related with the electronic communications sector. The Electronic Communications Law No. 5809 and the Universal Service Law No. 5369 had already been enacted in order to align with the EU acquis under the sector. As a result of the fast progress achieved in 2010, 15 regulations aiming to further align with the EU acquis under “Information Society” were enacted in only one year. Regarding the “Media” part of the chapter, the recently enacted “Law on the Establishment and Broadcasts of Radio and Television Enterprises” has been prepared to achieve the full alignment with the acquis and to meet the fourth and fifth closing benchmarks. As regards the fifth closing benchmark, reinforcing functioning of the RTÜK was elaborated in the context of an action plan which has been almost fully implemented.
In the context of media, further alignment via secondary legislation is planned for 2011. 6 regulations are foreseen to be amended in 2011 so that the closing of the Chapter may come to agenda.
Regarding “Chapter 11-Agriculture and Rural Development”, Turkey has already fulfilled one of the opening benchmarks, namely strategy on further development of the system of land identification and the National Farmer Registration System to prepare for controls on agricultural land.
Operating structures for Instrument for Pre-accession Rural Development component (IPARD) are currently being audited. Turkey expects concerted efforts for the completion of audits, conferral of management decision to be taken and thereby fulfilment of the opening benchmark in that respect soon.
The studies for other technical opening benchmarks continue. Moreover, currently Turkey imports cattle and beef meat from the EU on the basis of health conditions laid down by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs.
During the 10th meeting of EU-Turkey Sub-committee No.1 on Agriculture and Fisheries it was agreed to establish a working group on agricultural policies and implementation mechanisms. This will facilitate the completion of technical studies necessary not only for the opening of the chapter but also for alignment with the Common Agricultural Policy and preparations in the pre-accession period.
As is known “Chapter 12-Food Safety, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Policy” was opened to negotiations on 30 June 2010. The chapter has 6 technical closing benchmarks which are very demanding in terms of human and financial resources as well as the time required.
It is worth to underline that Turkey adopted, in June 2010, a framework law which forms the basis for adoption of the acquis in this chapter. Currently Turkey concentrated its efforts on drafting the secondary legislation, referred in the mentioned law, in line with the acquis.
We pay special attention to control and eradication of transboundary animal diseases and to benefit from EU pre-accession financial assistance in that area. These efforts will continue in future as well.
28 Furthermore Turkey has already initiated studies for the fulfilment of closing benchmarks. As before, the working groups established under EU-Turkey Sub-committee No.1 on Agriculture and Fisheries will contribute to Turkey’s efforts to meet the benchmarks.
Fisheries is one of the chapters whose screening report has not been adopted by the Council and communicated to Turkey yet. However Turkey’s efforts continue to achieve further alignment with the acquis in this field where contribution of projects financed by pre- accession assistance is remarkable.
Moreover, the working group to be established under EU-Turkey Sub-committee No.1 on Agriculture and Fisheries will facilitate legislative alignment and implementation of the acquis.
We closely follow the EU reform process in the field of fisheries and continue our efforts to align with the EU acquis.
Yet, as we shared with the EU Commission on several occasions in the past, we are concerned with some EU Directives pertaining to the creation of fisheries protection zones in the Mediterranean Sea. We maintain our view that those zones should not be claimed unilaterally as they should be established after a proper coordination and cooperation between the relevant coastal states in accordance with international law.
Furthermore, some provisions contained in EU Directive 1005/2008 seem controversial. This Directive refers to UNCLOS and tasks the Commission to use them as criteria in identifying non-cooperating third countries in the field of fisheries.
As concerns “Chapter 14-Transport Policy, which is among the suspended chapters, important progress has been achieved with regard to legislative alignment. As an acceding country to the EU, Turkey aligns its legislation and prepares its aviation sector to be fully in compliance with the acquis communautaire. In this vein, Turkey has made important progress with regard to legislative alignment in 2009 and 2010 and efforts to strengthen the implementation capacity are well underway.
We note with satisfaction that after many years of negotiations, the Horizontal Aviation Agreement was initialed in March 2010. Turkey had expressed its readiness to sign the Agreement during the Spanish EU Presidency. However, no date proposal has been made by the EU Commission in that respect.
We expect that this Agreement will pave the way towards Turkey’s participation in the Single European Sky (SES). In the meantime, we are following very closely the developments regarding SES Project through various channels including Eurocontrol. We also presented our views at the EU Madrid Conference on Single European Sky (SES) on 26 February 2010.
We believe that Turkey’s participation in the Single European Sky will not only guarantee the pan-European dimension of this Project, but also contribute to its effectiveness and inclusiveness. To that end, Eurocontrol's intergovernmental status should be respected and Agency’s expertise and experience should be exploited.
We are following closely the “Functional Airspace Block (FAB)” projects including the
29 BlueMed FAB, which comprises vast areas of international airspace in the Eastern Mediterranean. It is imperative that ICAO rules and procedures related to airspace management over the high seas be fully respected.
Therefore, we are looking forward to receiving from the Commission a draft road-map for Turkey’s integration into the Single European Sky. On the basis of this draft, Turkey stands ready to resuming dialogue with the Commission with a view to taking concrete steps for further integration into the SES.
As for the issue of air navigation safety in the Eastern Mediterranean region, both Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot side attach utmost importance to air navigation safety and are resolutely committed to upholding the highest standards in this field. Ercan Airport, which has been in service for over 30 years is technically up-to-date and effective to ensure flight safety, in particular thanks to the implementation of the SMART (Systematic Modernisation of Air Traffic Management) project.
Turkey has been actively working in order to find ways to enhance the interface among the relevant ACCs within the Eastern Mediterranean region, in cooperation with Eurocontrol, the European Commission and ICAO. We believe that technical and workable solutions can be found, without prejudice to the political and legal positions of the parties concerned.
In this vein, we have hosted five meetings in 2009 and one meeting was held in Brussels. Our proposal (letter of agreement) at the meeting held with the participation of the EU Commission in Istanbul on 16 October 2009 is still valid and workable.
We also submitted in October 2010 a new proposal to the ICAO Secretary General which envisages a two stage plan; either formal or informal, aiming at a technical and practical solution: - First a meeting between the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot Civil Aviation Authorities, under the auspices of ICAO, in parallel to the ongoing comprehensive negotiations under the UN auspices and the confidence building measures,
- and then if need be, a meeting in Paris, with the additional participation of Turkey and Greece.
- the attendance of the EUROCONTROL and the EU Commission at both stages are also encouraged in the proposal.
We are therefore expecting all relevant parties to favorably consider this proposal.
As regards maritime transport our continued efforts for the improvement of safety record of the Turkish fleet have yielded important results and now, Turkey is in the white list of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding.
In road transport, harmonization of EU legislation on access to the market and profession has been completed.
30 Ratification of the European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) was completed on 30 October 2009 and depository notification was made.
Since Turkey is already a party to the ADR Agreement, the relevant EU legislation on transport of dangerous goods by road has been transposed into Turkish road legislation. Some provisions of By-law on Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road entered into force on 1 January 2011, and the remaining provisions will enter into force between 2012 and 2014.
The digital tachograph system became obligatory on 1 January 2011 for vehicles with a mass of more than 3,5 tones (for trucks) and carrying more than 9 persons (for buses), used in international transport according to the deadline foreseen in AETR (European Agreement concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles engaged in International Road Transport). Turkey achieved its adaptation to the system after completing necessary legal and structural harmonization. Thus, the system is now operating smoothly.
The multitude of modernized vehicle inspection stations and weight as well as dimension control stations (WDC) already increased road safety in Turkey. 26 additional WDC stations were built in 2010 and the target number for the end of 2011 is a total of 60.
There is a considerable increase in the number of road side checks for commercial vehicles. Turkey is keen to develop multimodal transport and an ongoing project will contribute to alignment and strengthening of institutional capacity in this area.
Regarding the “Chapter 15-Energy”, we would like to stress once more that we expect necessary steps to be taken for the opening of this chapter to negotiations as soon as possible. It is unacceptable that the opening of a chapter is pending for well known reasons, which are not technical. Opening of this chapter will certainly contribute to implementing our energy security policies pursued in close collaboration with the EU and to furthering mutual benefits to be derived from cooperation.
Turkey has developed a multidimensional energy strategy to contribute to the efforts directed to ensure global energy supply security. The main pillar of this strategy is to establish an energy corridor between the energy rich countries of the East and energy consuming markets of the West. By this strategy, Turkey aims to transform itself into a transit country in the East- West and North-South energy axes and to become a significant energy hub in its region. Both the Nabucco and Turkey-Greece-Italy Natural Gas Pipeline (ITGI) are major projects to realize our goals.
Energy supply security requires diversification of the energy resources and routes as well as the energy mix. Therefore, Turkey attaches importance to diversification of energy routes and source countries. Bringing both route and source-country diversification, the Nabucco project plays an essential role in this regard. In light of our energy strategy, we attribute particular significance to the Nabucco project.
In this perspective, the Nabucco Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), which was signed in Ankara on July 13th 2009, came into force on 1 August 2010.
31 Turkey has completed the negotiations with the Nabucco International Company (NIC) concerning the Project Support Agreements (PSA). However, as the completion of the internal procedures with regard to the signatures of the Project Support Agreements has not been finalized, Turkey is not responsible for the delay.
We hope that the signing ceremony of the Project Support Agreements (PSA) as well as the First Nabucco Committee meeting will take place as soon as possible when all countries are ready to sign the PSA.
Regarding the ITGI, Turkey-Greece Interconnector is operational since 2007 and Greece-Italy Interconnector will be operational by 2017.
Regarding the Electricity Market, the privatization process of electricity distribution companies is ongoing. The privatization process of more than half of the distribution regions is completed and they have been transferred to their new owners. Almost 40 % of the current installed capacity in the power generation sector is envisaged to be privatized in the short- term and studies for the privatization of state owned generation assets are ongoing. Turkish electricity system has been connected to ENTSO-E since September 18, 2010.
Turkey has established the legal framework in the field of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources and continues to improve and strengthen the efforts for their promotion. Developments in the EU are being closely followed and relevant legislation is being amended accordingly. A new piece of legislation, harmonizing with eco-design requirements in the EU, was adopted in 2010.
Turkey aims to integrate nuclear energy into her energy mix in order to meet the growing electricity demand, while mitigating the increasing dependence on imported fuels. Therefore, Turkey established the legal basis for the construction and operation of nuclear power plants and is a member of the International Convention on Nuclear Safety.
Nuclear safety is a top priority for Turkey and she is taking all necessary measures to guarantee utmost safety. Legislative arrangements are enforced in the field of nuclear safety, safeguards and radiation protection issues. All legislation and draft legislation are prepared in conformity with corresponding international standards. Studies are underway for finalizing the draft Nuclear Law.
The ratification process has been initiated to accede to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.
As regards “Chapter 16-Taxation, technical studies on three technical closing benchmarks are in progress.
The Action Plan on taxation of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products, aiming to eliminate discriminatory implementation of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products, dated May 18, 2009 is a key to our road map in this Chapter.
During the preparation of the Action Plan, a mutual agreement was reached about the elimination of taxation differences by equalizing the parities, in other words proportionality relationship between the imported and domestic beverages. On the other hand, considering the
32 tax differentials in the Action Plan as absolute figures instead of proportional terms is not compatible with the nature of the Action Plan.
Concerning the alcoholic beverages, there has been a two step increase in the specific tax amounts of all alcoholic beverages at a rate of 10% and 30% in 2009 and 2010 respectively. Although excise duty rates for all alcoholic beverages increased, the tax differentials between imported and locally produced beverages remains proportionally constant and thus shall not constitute a discriminatory taxation treatment.
The increase in minimum specific tax amounts of alcoholic beverages does not cause a change in current parities, namely taxation with regard to Raki. For instance, the ratio of specific tax amount of whisky to that of Raki which should be 1,67 according to the Action Plan commitments has been preserved even after 10% and 30% tax increases. With the measures to be taken in the following periods, the parity difference between imported alcoholic beverages and locally produced ones will be gradually decreased and fully eliminated by 2018 as specified in the schedule of the Action Plan.
Furthermore, in case the reduction of the tax differentials among different alcoholic beverages is considered as the reduction in absolute terms, the tax differentials between imported and locally produced beverages will be eliminated before 2018.
Therefore, these tax increases are fully in line with the Action Plan.
As regards taxation of imported tobacco, we fully abolished tobacco fund on processed tobacco with a Decree on 29 December 2009. Please note that we have recently made a further 25% reduction in the tobacco fund for the unprocessed tobacco on 30 December 2010 in order to meet the Action Plan requirements in this field.
There should be no doubts or worries about Turkey’s commitment to implement the Action Plan.
Regarding the customs valuation issue, the Law No.6111on Restructuring of Public Receivables entered into force on 28 February 2011, which we think introduces an important opportunity for EU traders for the resolution of the issue. In this context we expect relevant spirit drinks traders should follow the procedures established in the above mentioned Law.
In “Chapter 18-Statistics” there are two closing benchmarks in this chapter referring to agricultural statistics and national accounts. The first one is also the opening benchmark of the Agriculture and Rural Development chapter. The preparation of the strategy paper on the agricultural statistics and restructuring of the central and regional organization of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA), in order to provide reliable statistical data and establishment of the statistical farm registry system is on-going.
In the framework of strengthening the infrastructure for agricultural statistics and collecting correct, actual and controlled data, “Protocol of Establishing and Updating of Agricultural Information System in Priority of Parcel Based Agricultural Enterprise Registration System” was signed between MARA and Turkstat on 13 July 2010.
33 “Chapter 20-Enterprise and Industry Policy” was opened to negotiations on March 29, 2009. In order to fulfill technical closing benchmark of this chapter, “Turkish Industrial Strategy Document 2011-2014 (Towards EU Membership)” was prepared with the contribution of related public and private organizations and in close cooperation with the Commission. Upon receiving Commission’s final affirmative comments, Strategy Paper was approved by the High Planning Council and published in the Official Gazette. Strategy paper was translated into English and sent to EU side on 2 March 2011.
“Chapter 21-Trans European Networks” was opened to negotiations on December 19, 2007. One technical closing benchmark was envisaged for the chapter with two sub- components: “Turkey and the European Commission have agreed on the future TEN-T network according to the Decision 1692/96/EC as amended and Turkey and the European Commission have agreed on a priority project of European Interest in the framework of this TEN-T network.”
For the accomplishment of the first sub-component of the technical benchmark, the “TEN-T Document” was prepared on the basis of the TINA study by the Ministry of Transport. The Document was officially sent to the European Commission on 12.01.2011.
For the accomplishment of the second sub-component, the Commission and Turkey have agreed on the “European Interest” priority project as “Kapıkule-Halkalı-Ankara-Sivas-Kars Railway Line Project”.
Turkey has completed all necessary studies and has fulfilled the technical closing benchmark of this chapter.
As concerns “Chapter 22-Regional Policy and Coordination of the Structural Instruments”, 26 Development Agencies in NUTS II Regions were established and currently they are in operation. Implementation schedule envisaged for 4 operational programmes (Environment, Transportation, Regional Competitiveness and Human Resources Development) in the framework of IPA Component III and IV is ongoing while finance and contract units of all line ministries are planned to be accredited until January 2012.
As regards “Chapter 24 - Justice, Freedom and Security”, our extensive efforts continue on a very fast pace for the alignment with the EU Acquis. The progress in Chapter 24 indicates that Turkey has reached a sufficient stage of fulfilling the requirements for opening the negotiations.
Even though years have passed over the screening process, the screening reports on the Chapter 24 have not been approved by the EU Council yet. As a result the opening benchmarks have not been communicated to Turkey officially. It is disappointing to know that the opening of Chapter 24, which is supposed to be a technical process, have become a political matter. This chapter is a very crucial one especially regarding migration management which requires a successful coordination throughout the negotiations.
Turkey is determined to combat illegal migration. For this purpose, a “Coordination Board Combating Illegal Migration” has been set up for the purpose of identifying the measures to be taken in the fight against illegal migration, strengthen inter-institutional cooperation and coordination, and monitor operational activity at the macro level.
34 As a result of the decisions taken by this Board as well as the findings of the Ministry of Interior, effective measures are being taken in the fight against illegal migration. For example work is under way to build 3 new removal centres with the resources of the Ministry of Interior in order to increase Turkey’s present removal capacity to combat illegal migration. Moreover, an amendment to the Article 79 of Turkish Penal Code regarding the punishment for the human smugglers was adopted by the Parliament in November 2009 so as to enable the efforts on fighting with illegal migration.
Work is underway on “Foreigners and International Protection Law” and “Law on the Fight against Human Trafficking and Protection of Victims” which will redefine basic policies and significantly develop the system in the areas of asylum and migration. The draft laws have been shared with the stakeholders in order to have the views of relevant international organizations, civil society organizations and academicians. Upon consulting relevant institutions the draft of “Foreigners and International Protection Law” has been sent to the Prime Ministry by the Ministry of Interior.
The urgent problems which can be solved without changing in laws in the field of illegal migration have been detected and the circular on “Combating Irregular Migration” regarding the solution of these problems was issued on 19 March 2010.
The circular on “Combating Irregular Migration”, includes subjects such as physical conditions and practices in the removal centres and refers to necessary measures with a view to making the successful practices more efficient in the field of migration management and better coordinating the implementation between agencies.
The foreigners who enter Turkey legally or illegally and lodge asylum application in Turkey are not deported. First their asylum applications are processed. The result of their asylum applications determines the status of foreigners. Illegal migrants at the return centres are also given access to the asylum procedure once they want to apply for asylum.
Preparation of a “road map” in order to elaborate and develop goals stated in the Asylum and Migration National Action Plan is ongoing under the coordination of the “Bureau on Development and Implementation of the Legislation on Asylum and Migration and Administrative Capacity”.
Transparency and cooperation have been designated as the main principles in all the above- mentioned work. In this framework effective cooperation is realized with the UNHCR and IOM in the preparation of the legislation. Four representatives from the UNHCR and IOM Turkey Country Offices provide technical support to drafting the new laws. Active cooperation with academicians and NGOs working in the areas of migration and asylum has also been realized. A consultancy board consisting of academicians has been established, while workshops are planned with the participation of NGOs.
The Asylum and Migration Task Force was established by the Undersecretary of Ministry of Interior on 9 February 2009 to continue its activities under the co-ordination of the “Bureau on Development and Implementation of the Legislation on Asylum and Migration and Administrative Capacity.”
35 We have finalized Readmission Agreement negotiations with the European Commission in a spirit of cooperation and goodwill. As I mentioned before the decision of Justice and Home Affairs Council on 24 February 2011 fell short of fulfilling our expectations. The conclusion and initialling of the Readmission Agreement should be carried out in parallel to the initiation of the visa dialogue process between Turkey and the European Commission towards a visa free regime. We expect the Council to give Commission an official mandate to initiate a dialogue with Turkey on a Roadmap that will eventually provide visa liberalization for Turkish citizens.
As regards the border management, the Roadmap on the National Action Plan on Integrated Border Management has been drafted and the final draft of the Roadmap has been officially sent to the European Commission. There are various topics in the draft Roadmap including best practices and harmonization of EU Acquis in the field of IBM with a view to shape the new legislation on Border Institution, increasing intra-agency, inter-agency and international cooperation as well as the administrative and technical capacity of border agencies. The Ministry of Interior is working on the Roadmap with a view to finalizing it in coordination with the relevant institutions.
Through a Prime Ministry Circular dated 26 May 2010, a high-level Integrated “Border Management Coordination Board” has been established to create an official follow-up mechanism at the decision-makers level to screen the progress towards achieving the target of integrated border management. The first meeting of the Coordination Board was held on 9 November 2010 under the chairmanship of the Undersecretary of Ministry of Interior.
At the beginning of 2009, the “Task Force for External Borders” was formed with the participation of representatives of the institutions involved in IBM. Since its establishment, “Task Force for External Borders” regularly convenes every two months.
The most important agenda of the Task Force for External Borders is to improve cooperation between all agencies working at borders by developing joint risk analyses, operations and investigations, common checks, database, workflow, disaster plans etc.
Work on the establishment of a new Border Guards Agency is in progress. A draft law on this issue was prepared within 2010 by the Ministry of Interior. The work to finalize the draft law in coordination with the relevant institutions is in progress.
By the time the professional integrated border management authority takes over, we will continue our efforts to strengthen the administrative and technical capacity of our land border units.
As regards the organized crime, Turkey has made great efforts in strengthening its institutional capacity and in aligning its policies and strategies with those of the EU, with respect to fight against organized crime. In this context, adoption of the national strategy (2010-2015) and action plan (2010-2012) against organised crime on 19 July 2010 constitutes an important landmark in bringing Turkey’s policies and strategies on the fight against organised crime in line with those of the EU.
Moreover, Turkey signed the ‘Council of Europe Convention on cybercrime’ on 10 November 2010. This convention will forge closer links between law enforcement agencies
36 dealing with cyber-crime and promote international cooperation in fight against cyber crime. In addition, this treaty would contribute to the efforts made towards fighting organized crime on international scale.
Another crucial development is that the Cooperation Protocol in the Area of Anti-Smuggling was signed between the State Ministry to which the Customs Undersecretariat is affiliated and Ministry of Interior in March 2011. The said Protocol aims to identify the general principles and responsibilities of the institutions, and develop cooperation for the prevention of smuggling, monitoring and research.
As regards the fight against drugs, Turkey has taken important initiatives and carried out important works. Within this framework, the first ‘National Drug Action Plan’ covering the periods from 2006 to 2012 came into force with the approval of the Prime Minister on 20 November 2006. This document functions as the grand strategy of counternarcotics initiatives of the Turkish drug enforcement agencies. On the basis of the aforementioned document, the first ‘National Drug Action Plan’ signed by the Minister of Interior in 2006, came into effect. The action plan was prepared to achieve the division of labour between relevant institutions and to lay down the principles to ensure the coordination between institutions, in the context of the implementation of the said strategic document.
Following the expiry of the first action plan, the second ‘National Action Plan’ came into force with the approval of the Minister of Interior on 9 November 2010. The said document sets forth the targets and measures with the aim of effectively fighting against both drug smuggling and drug addiction.
“Chapter 25-Science and Research” was opened to negotiation and provisionally closed on 12 June 2006. The acquis in this field does not require transposition into national legislation. The implementing capacity is relevant with the existence of necessary conditions for effective participation in the community programmes in the field of research (Framework Programmes). In this field, progress was achieved both with regard to the actions rendering more favorable environment for research and concerning research collaboration with the EU.
Turkey’s negotiation position paper on “Chapter 26-Education and Culture” was submitted on 25th of May 2006. The position paper touched upon all issues relevant with the acquis. Turkey has a good level of alignment with the acquis and the necessary administrative capacity in this field.
Turkey is committed to continue its efforts to improve the efficiency of the implementation of the Community Programmes, Bologna Process, Education and Training 2010 and its successor ET 2020 Work Programme. EU 2020 Strategy priorities and its flagship initiatives regarding education have been taken into the national educational agenda. Turkey is technically ready for opening the chapter to negotiations. Therefore, this chapter is expected to be opened to negotiations without any benchmarks during the Hungarian Presidency.
As concerns “Chapter 27- Environment”, intense efforts have finally resulted in the opening of the chapter to negotiations during the Swedish Presidency on December 21, 2009. It is acknowledged that due to its broad content and heavy compliance costs, the environment is a rather challenging sector as proven by the experiences of both the old and new Member States of the EU. Turkey’s firm determination and commitment to the EU accession process will
37 have resulted in fulfillment of the benchmarks required for the closing of the chapter, which cover an extensive range of issues.
Turkey is aware of the global threat of climate change. We believe that combating climate change and with its adverse effects is the shared responsibility of all countries. Turkey became a Party to the UNFCCC in 2004 and its Kyoto Protocol on 26 August 2009, and is willing to take part in the post – 2012 climate regime with a fair legal status on the basis of the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” and in accordance with her “national circumstances”, “respective capabilities”, “and sustainable economic and social development objectives”. Turkey is ready to make her fair contribution to combating climate change in accordance with the Decision taken 7th Conference of the Parties in Marrakesh (26/CP.7) and clearly respected by the Cancun Decisions stressing Turkey’s special circumstances and placing her in a situation different than the other Annex-I Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The By-Law on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that was revised in 2008 and came into force on July 17, 2008 is in line with the EU EIA Directive except transboundary issues.
Turkey would like to underline that annexes of the By-law on EIA in national context cover water infrastructures. Although according to the temporary article it is not compulsory to carry out an EIA study for the projects whose application projects have been approved before the By-Law published in 7 February 1993, EIA was applied for all water infrastructure projects constructed or being constructed on transboundary water basins.
Turkey will conclude all legislative work with a view to fully harmonizing the Directives related with Aarhus and Espoo Conventions two years before the ascertained date of Turkey’s accession to the EU. Transboundary issues, including their implementation aspects earlier than accession will be evaluated soon and the Commission will be informed about the deliberations in due time.
Moreover, enactment of Nature and Biodiversity Protection Law is another commitment of Turkey. In this context, many technical meetings have been held in Parliament by participation of all stakeholders which include NGO’s and Chamber of Environmental Engineers and Draft Law on Nature and Biodiversity Protection has passed from the Environment Commission of TGNA.
In addition the Ministry of Environment and Forestry has submitted a project to transpose the Strategic Environment Assessment Directive (excluding transboundary issues) which will be achieved in a short period of time.
With regard to “Chapter 32-Financial Control”, the most important development is the enactment of the Law on Turkish Court of Accounts on 3 December 2010. One of the closing benchmarks is fulfilled with the enactment of this Law, which is in line with the INTOSAI standards and guidelines. Accordingly, Turkish Court of Accounts has already started to prepare related secondary legislation.
Furthermore, working groups have been established to study the relevant closing benchmarks more deeply. In this respect;
38 Technical preparations on the revised Public Internal Financial Control Policy Paper have continued under the coordination of the Ministry of Finance.
Prime Ministry Inspection Board was appointed as the AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) to report irregularity and fraud cases related to EU funds to OLAF (European Commission Anti-Fraud Office), by a Prime Ministry Circular No. 2009/19 (Official Gazette of 05.12.2009, No.27423). In order to increase the effectiveness of Turkish AFCOS’s inter- institutional coordination function, an AFCOS network has been set up in December 2010 and all relevant institutions are included in this AFCOS network. The meetings of this network are being held on regular basis every two months.
A workshop was organized on May 14, 2008 with the participation of European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) authorities. After the discussions held in this workshop, the European Commission has acknowledged that the new Turkish Criminal Code satisfies requirements of the Convention of the Protection of EU Financial Interests (PIF Convention) to a great extent. Working groups continued to study on a legislative alignment with Council Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 on protection of the Euro against counterfeiting, and also with Council Regulation (EC) No 2182/2004 concerning medals and tokens similar to Euro coins.
In the field of protection of Euro against counterfeiting, expertise for analysis and classification of counterfeited notes and coins in the Turkish administration and administrative capacity of four enforcement bodies are considered sufficient by the European Commission. Currently, Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey and Turkish State Mint have been carrying out the functions of the National Analysis Centre and the National Coin Analysis Centre, respectively. On the other hand, the Europol, Interpol, Sirene Department of the General Directorate of Security of the Ministry of Interior has been appointed as the National Central Office by a Ministerial Approval. The Commission was informed of this assignment.
39 49th SESSION OF THE TURKEY-EU ASSOCIATION COUNCIL
STATEMENT BY H.E. MR. AHMET DAVUTOĞLU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
AND
STATEMENT BY H.E. MR. EGEMEN BAĞIŞ, MINISTER OF STATE FOR EU AFFAIRS AND CHIEF NEGOTIATOR OF THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
AGENDA ITEM 4: STATE OF RELATIONS UNDER THE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AND THE CUSTOMS UNION
BRUSSELS, 19 APRIL 2011
40 We are aware that in our bilateral trade agenda there are some outstanding issues related to the functioning of the Customs Union and that most of these issues are directly linked to the accession negotiations since they are set as opening/closing benchmarks for a number of negotiating chapters. Accordingly, we attach great importance to the solution of these issues both to accelerate the negotiation process and to secure the proper functioning of the Customs Union.
Yet, we also believe that solution of the current issues requires a good cooperation on the basis of goodwill and efforts of the both Parties. As mentioned on many occasions, we think that one of the reasons for the current situation is the lack of an effective consultation mechanism in this area as defined in Decision 1/95. In the absence of such mechanism, it is inevitable that the parties of the Customs Union remain unable to translate the main principle of the Customs Union into practice, which is ensuring the “proper functioning of the Customs Union”.
In our understanding, to act in line with this principle is a legal obligation of both Parties. In the absence of such an understanding, we believe it is impossible to reflect the whole spirit of the Customs Union into reality. In other words, we believe that there is a certain need to change the current approach towards the problem, which sees that the right operation of Decision 1/95 is an obligation undertaken only by Turkey. We consider that the right/proper operation of Decision 1/95 certainly requires both parties to act in coordination and by taking each other’s needs and initiatives into consideration.
We believe that such approach will have a direct impact on the resolution of current issues and also on the pace of accession negotiations.
Allocation of tariff rate quotas for the importation of processed agricultural products from the EU:
Within the framework of the provisions of EU-Turkey Association Council Decision No: 1/2007, tariff rate quotas were opened for the importation of certain processed agricultural products from the EU in accordance with the Decree No: 2007/12555 dated August 13, 2007.
The procedures and principles related to the administration and allocation of the aforementioned tariff rate quotas were determined in the Communiqué on Tariff Rate Quotas for Importation of Certain Processed Agricultural Products From the EU, published in the Official Gazette No: 27709 dated September, 24 2010, which has abolished the Communiqué published in the Official Gazette No: 26703 dated November17, 2007.
In the aforementioned Communiqué, the maximum amounts set for each application were increased taking into consideration the average amounts imported on the basis of customs declarations with regard to the related product.
So as to benefit from that tariff rate quotas, the applicants shall apply to the Undersecretariat for Foreign Trade for an import license, which has to be presented to the competent customs authority in the importation.
On the other hand, the tariff rate quotas are allocated to the industrialists, producing the aforementioned processed agricultural products and/or using them as raw materials in
41 production, by taking into consideration the order of applications provided that the allocated quantity does not exceed “the maximum quantity of tariff rate quota” determined in the Communiqué. Accordingly, the tariff rate quotas are allocated on the method based on the order in which applications are submitted, in other words on the “first come first served” basis.
The abovementioned criteria are used in the allocation, so as to ensure the equal and balanced utilization of tariff rate quotas opened for the importation of processed agricultural products from the EU.
On the other hand, revision process regarding the allocation procedure of the tariff quotas resulting from the “Communiqué on Tariff Rate Quotas for Importation of Certain Processed Agricultural Products from the EU” is continuing.
Turkish standardization in foreign trade regime:
The new web-based Product Safety System (System), sought to carry out electronically import and export controls required by legislation, was launched in spring 2010 by the Undersecretariat of Foreign Trade (UFT). Designed to be reached from the web using eSignature, the new control system’s objective is to provide safe and quality products to consumers and firms, to rationalize the allocation of resources in terms of the control of “risky” products, to reduce the waiting time at the customs, and overall to render Turkish trade policy more effective.
The System has been planned to initially encompass goods of vital importance to consumers like personal protective equipments, toys, radio and telecommunications terminal equipments, batteries and accumulators, construction products, medical devices and agricultural products actually inspected by the Undersecretariat. More than 300 thousand transactions regarding thousands of products worth $8 billion according to 2009 data are planned to be put under the system.
Strong efforts have been spent to render the System operational by the end of 2011. In this context, its pilot implementation began for a number of imported industrial and agricultural products.
The System was presented to the experts of the European Commission by the representatives of the UFT (DG for Standardisation) at a meeting on 4 April 2011 in Brussels. The Commission was informed that during the pilot implementation initiated towards the end of 2010 all products coming from the EU, whether or not of the EU origin, were assumed as “risk free”. Commission experts found the presentation useful as it clarified numerous issues and welcomed the fact that Turkey established such a sophisticated system. They stressed the point that the new approach towards the products coming from the EU which is adopted de facto through the new system should be reflected de jure in the relevant legislation.
Prior information/notification regarding the Customs Union related new legislation:
Turkey gives utmost importance to the proper implementation of the provisions of the Customs Union Decision on the consultation mechanism between the parties and takes into account the Commission’s views while preparing new legislation. Nevertheless, there are a
42 number of institutions responsible for preparing legislation in various areas related with the functioning of the Customs Union, and in some cases, where there is a need for quick action, the consultation mechanisms could not be respected as effectively as Turkey wishes.
In fact, we also have been suffering from the same issue for a long time. For example, Turkey cannot receive the draft texts of the EU’s Free Trade Agreements. Moreover, the Commission does not seek the opinion of Turkish experts during the preparation of the related EU legislation and Turkey is informed about the said legislation at the same time with the third countries.
In this respect, we would like to underline that it is necessary that both parties become more sensitive about the consultation and communication of the related legislation in the areas of direct relevance to the functioning of the Customs Union.
Bovine meat and live animals:
As is well known, Veterinary Services, Plant Health, Food and Feed Law No.5996 entered into force on the 13th of December 2010 for the alignment of EU acquis in the relevant fields. Import procedures of EU will be harmonized with the secondary legislation according to this law and the drafts of secondary legislation are prepared and under internal review process.
As regards beef meat, by taking into account of the RESOLUTION No. 18 regarding the Recognition of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Risk Status of Members according to the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE); beef can be imported from all EU countries under “negligible” or “controlled” BSE risk status. Beef cannot be imported from EU countries such as Bulgaria and Romania or from countries outside the EU, which are classified under “undetermined BSE risk” group.
A new Communiqué on the Amendment of the Communiqué on Requirements to be met to obtain Control Document to Import Bovine Meat No.2010/56 entered into force on the 14th of January 2011 (O.G. No.27815). With this Communiqué, the requirement of BSE Testing on the animals is repealed according to the new OIE recommendation. Therefore if the exporter country fulfills just “No case/outbreak of BSE Disease in the territory” condition and recognized as “Negligible” or “Controlled” Risk Status by OIE importation of bovine meat is possible.
Regarding bovine animals trade, EU Member States from which bovine animals can be imported are;
• Greece (excluding 5 regions :Voreio, Kilkis, Pella, Thessaloniki and Serres), • Austria (excluding 12 regions: Gmünd, Bregenz, Salzburg-Umgebung, Perg, Lienz, St.veit/Glan (Sankt Veit an der Glan), Kirchberg/krems (Kirchdorf an der Krems), Wiener Neustadt, Schärding, Bludenz and Hallein), • Hungary • Estonia • Latvia • Lithuania • Finland (excluding 1 region: Northern Ostrobothnia) • Sweden (excluding 1 region: Vastmanland)
43 Studies continue to determine the animal health status of the EU countries where there is no beef trade. Again bovine animals cannot be imported from countries classified as undetermined BSE risk status.
Health requirements for the importation of bovine animals are determined by taking into account of the recommendations of the OIE, EU Legislation, opinions of national veterinary institutes and national legislation. Different health certificates are issued according to the animal health status of the exporting countries.
Until now, Turkey has imported bovine animal from Hungary, Latvia, Estonia, Greece and Austria; beef imports has been realized from Poland, Germany, Lithuania, Hungary, Czech Republic, Belgium, Latvia, Slovenia, Austria, Greece, Slovakia, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, France and Luxemburg. There were no other imports from the rest of the EU member countries as there was no demand.
This issue was discussed at the SPS Trade Issues Working Group Meeting on 16th of March and the Commission has indicated that they were satisfied with the recent developments. As trade figures show Turkey has taken major steps to meet one of the benchmarks of Chapter 11. The remaining minor technical issues will be resolved under this working group.
This issue was also discussed at the last meeting of the Customs Union Joint Committee on 7 April 2011. During the meeting it was agreed that the Commission will come up with more information on the issue.
The Good Manufacturing Practices:
The General Directorate of Pharmaceuticals and Pharmacy of the Ministry of Health (MoH) is solely using its rights for inspections like all other relevant competent authorities. The GMP inspections right has been stated at the first GMP regulation in 1984 and repeated in the current legislation named “Regulation on Good Manufacturing Practices for Human Medicinal Products” published 23 October 2003. This legislation was updated on 30 June 2004 which is harmonized according to the 2001/83/EC, 91/356/EC directives. The GMP inspectors carry out these inspections according to the updated GMP guidelines and regulation.
The implementation of the GMP inspections is an administrative decision and it is not a new legislation of the MoH. The main concern of this decision is the protection of public health and will be applied to the pharmaceutical companies that have the intention to import to Turkey. The inspections are being carried out in the manufacturing plants established in the European Union or the United States which are the members of the World Trade Organization. The decision regarding the GMP inspections is valid for both domestic and foreign companies without making any discrimination among countries and companies.
This decision does not require any new data to be produced and/or preparation of new files. Besides, the requirements concerning this decision were announced to the relevant partners in the web site of the MoH.
44 The GMP inspections are carried in our country since 1985. The first GMP legislation was put into force on 01.11.1984. Today, we have 300 small, medium and large pharmaceuticals manufacturers and wholesalers which have been inspected every 3 years routinely.
State Aids/National Restructuring Plan (NRP):
According to the framework shaped through meetings with the Commission experts, the National Restructuring Plan (NRP), which is related to the opening benchmarks 2 and 6 of Competition Policy Chapter, was revised and sent to the European Commission at the end of May 2009.
Since the submission of the NRP, we had several meetings about the benchmarks of Competition Policy Chapter including the NRP-related issues. Furthermore, we provided documents and responded the questions requested and raised by the Commission with the Commission letters. We believe that all meetings and information sharing with the Commission were very productive and cleared most of their questions.
Especially, during the last meeting held on 24th February 2011 in Ankara the Commission accepted that transparency on state aid to steel industry was achieved.
Free movement of goods:
Import permits for old and used products:
In line with the Turkish Import Regime Decree “the importation of old, used, renovated, faulty and obsolete goods” is subject to the authorisation of the Undersecretariat for Foreign Trade. Accordingly, until the end of 2009, the import of the old, used or renovated goods covered by the Import Communiqué 2009/9, had been free without being subject to any prior permission, on the condition that the goods to be imported were not older than ten years.
Yet, with the idea of providing an effective and a more liberalized system based on risk analysis, the Undersecretariat for Foreign Trade has put into force a new Communiqué namely the Import Communiqué 2010/9, on 1 January 2010.
The Communiqué, which has been renewed on 1 January 2011 with the Import Communiqué 2011/9, is based on the logic of classifying the old and used products in three lists, the importation of which:
- are free (List I A), - are subject to prior permission of relevant institutions (Directorate General of Civil Aviation and Undersecretariat of the Maritime Affairs) (List I B), and - are directly subject to prior permission of the Undersecratariat for Foreign Trade (List II).
On the other hand, the products in List II can be imported to Turkey without permission of the Undersecretariat for Foreign Trade provided that;
- their unit CIF price is more than the price determined and listed in Annex II.
45 - or they are imported in quantities that are equal to or less than 10 units and 50 kilogram (both conditions are to be met at the same time) for each tariff code in each customs import declaration.
By the new Communiqué, we achieved to establish an effective, liberalized system based on risk analysis, disregarding the age of the product but instead taking into account the CIF price of it. The new Communiqué thus provides the market with the best possible option to liberalize and regulate the import of used products to Turkey.
On the other hand, we have received the list of products that EU requests the further liberalization of and we have taken note of the Commission’s request. In that respect, the Undersecretariat will take this request into account as part of the annual working program to revise the Import Regime which takes its latest form at the end of each year, with the exception of the retreated tires. Accordingly, the internal consultation procedure regarding these products will also start in the context of the preparation of the new Import Regime. Besides, I would like to express that there has been no change in Turkey’s position regarding the importation of retreaded tires due to its detrimental effects on human, animal and plant health. The justification of our position has also been confirmed by the WTO panel between EU and Brazil.
Import licenses:
Turkey regulates and monitors the imports of certain goods on grounds of public morality, public policy and public security; protection of health and life of human, animals or plants; protection of environment; protection of industrial and commercial property; consumer rights as well as import policies in force. These grounds also include a number of international agreements and conventions to which Turkey is a Party.
To this end, within the context of the Turkish Import Regime, Turkey introduces Import Communiqués in which the procedures and documentation required during the imports of certain goods are laid down.
Recently, considering the Commission’s criticisms with respect to the implementations under certain Import Communiqués, some steps have been taking by Turkey with a view to both eliminating these criticisms in this area and fulfilling the opening benchmarks determined for the Chapter of Free Circulation of Goods.
In this regard, in recent years import licenses for a number of products like cosmetics, detergents, toys, fertilizers, and solvent for some petroleum products were abolished. We expect that certain licensing requirements also would be abolished as the relevant institutions complete their work.
Export of Copper Scrap:
Registering the copper scrap before exportation serves several goals. Mainly, it is related to the protection of human health and life and the protection of environment. Our aim is to prevent possible troubles with the importing countries about the copper scrap exported from Turkey, and to take measures in order to prevent the return of the exported copper scrap to
46 Turkey in advance. For instance, the copper scrap to be exported may contain hazardous substances and wastes. Therefore, we want to prevent the export of such products.
Another aim is related with product quality. Turkey would like to ensure that our export products carry high quality. Within this framework, we want our exporters to supply good grade copper scrap. In order to achieve this aim, copper scrap to be exported should be collected from reliable and trusted sources, and there must be no materials other than copper scrap such as wastes. Therefore, copper scrap that are ready for export are inspected by the inspection units called as Inspectorates of Standardization for Foreign Trade. Following the inspection carried out by the inspectors, an official report is submitted to the exporter if the product is found to be in good quality.
One more aim of registering the exportation of copper scrap is related with keeping statistical data.
To conclude, this application does not mean restriction or prohibition of exportation of copper scrap. 1.623 metric tonnes of copper scrap was exported in June-December 2010 period. Share of export of copper scrap to EU member countries in the mentioned period is 37%, which means export of 423 metric tonnes of copper scrap.
In January-February 2011, 1.346 metric tonnes of copper scrap was exported from Turkey. 595 metric tonnes of this amount was exported to the EU (%44,2). This shows that copper scrap export of Turkey is continuing without problem.
According to Eurostat data, while in 2009, import of copper scrap of EU 27 from the rest of the world is 758.2 million Euros, whereas import from Turkey in 2009 is 17.6 million Euros, representing a 2.32% share; in 2010, import of copper scrap of EU 27 from the rest of the world is 1.47 billion Euros, whereas import from Turkey in the same period is 35.6 million Euros, which represents 2.41% share.
Update of Decision 2/97:
Until now, over eighty percent of the EU acts, enumerated in Annex II to Decision 2/97 of the EU-Turkey Association Council, have been adopted by Turkey. Updating the list annexed to Decision 2/97 has been on the table for a long time and needs a conclusion satisfactory to both Parties. In the 12th meeting of the Working Group on Technical Legislation of Products held in Brussels on 27 October, the Parties agreed on working on the draft decision proposed by the Commission in 2007. After the meeting, the draft has been revised and consulted with the Commission several times. Upon Commission’s last proposal, which was received on 14 March 2011, Turkey started the internal procedure to reply to it. The internal consultation was finalized and the Draft was sent to the Commission on 11 April 2011. Turkey believes that negotiation between the Parties is close to a conclusion.
47 Commercial policy:
Extension of safeguard measures:
As is known, Council of Ministers Decree No. 2004/7305 of 10 May 2004 concerning safeguard measures for imports was published in the Official Gazette No.25476 of 29 May 2004.
Turkey applies general safeguard measures in conformity with the WTO rules and Customs Union Decision and takes into account the measures, which least disturb the trade between the EU and Turkey.
The extension investigations for the safeguard measures on imports of footwear, steam smoothing irons, vacuum cleaners, salt and motorcycles have been conducted within the rules and the procedures set by WTO Agreements and Safeguards. Accordingly, it was found out that the conditions for the extension of the measures against these items, except salt, were fulfilled, and hence the measures against these four products were extended for an additional 3-year period.
Recently, with the official Communiqués No. 2011/1 and 2011/2 dated 13 January 2011, Undersecretariat of the Prime Ministry for Foreign Trade has initiated a safeguard investigation on some textile and apparel products.
Within the scope of the Decree on the Safeguard Measures for Imports numbered 2011/1476 that is published on the Official Gazette, (No: 27884, 24/03/2011), The Council of Ministers has decided to impose provisional measure on some textile and apparel products that is in the form of guarantee and as refundable. The measure will be in force after 120 days after the Decision of Council of Ministers has published.
Provisional measure will be implemented to all countries except European Union and the countries which have a Free Trade Agreement with Turkey.
Participation in the Consultation Mechanisms and Decision Making Process:
Most of the problems encountered during the functioning of the Customs Union mainly stem from Turkey’s lack of participation in the EU’s decision making and consultation mechanisms in the areas directly related to the Customs Union and the inability to make operational the procedures envisaged by Articles 54-60 of the Customs Union Decision. Our experience in the last fifteen years has clearly demonstrated that the smooth operation of our association relation, without being treated in the same manner as the EU member states and without having a say in the decision making mechanism in the areas directly related to the functioning of the Customs Union, is extremely difficult.
Taking into account the importance of the said mechanisms, the first paragraph of Article 55 of Customs Union Decision states that wherever new legislation is prepared by the Commission in an area of direct relevance to the operation of the Customs Union and the Commission consults experts from Member States, Turkish experts shall also be informally consulted. The second paragraph of the same Article envisages that while the Commission is
48 transmitting its proposal to the Council of the European Union, it should also send copies to Turkey.
On the other hand, Article 59 of Customs Union Decision envisages that, in areas of direct relevance to the proper functioning of the Customs Union, Turkish experts are involved as far as possible in the preparation of draft measures and when drafting proposals, the Commission shall consult experts from Turkey on the same basis as it consults experts from the Member States. Moreover, according to the said Article, where the matter is referred to the Council of the European Union, the Commission shall transmit to the Council, the views of the Turkish experts.
Despite Turkey’s persistent initiatives before the Commission, so far only limited progress has been recorded regarding the issue of consultation with the Turkish experts during preparation of new legislation. A systematic mechanism to take into account Turkey’s views for the new draft legislation has not been established. On the other hand, we used to receive copies of draft legislation while they were transmitted to the Council. However, this method has not been working since last year and draft legislation has not been communicated to us properly. Hence, at this stage it is not possible to reflect Turkish experts’ views to the draft legislation accurately.
Moreover, although it is envisaged by Article 60 of Customs Union Decision, Turkish experts cannot participate in the EU technical committees which have important roles in the EU consultation and decision making mechanism, in a sufficient manner. Taking into account the fact that EU acquis is continuously evolving through the adoption of new legislation and with the changes in the existing ones, participation in the committees have great importance for the proper functioning of the Customs Union.
Regarding our repeated attempts to increase the number of EU committees participated by Turkey, the Commission declines most of our requests on the grounds that Turkey has not transposed the related legislation.
But, it is a fact that the Customs Union Decision does not have such a condition. Such a requirement was brought up by the Commission Communication of 1999 related to the participation of candidate countries in the Community programmes and committees. However, Turkey has a unique status as a negotiating country with the EU which has completed the Customs Union before joining the EU. The number of committees where Turkish experts’ participation is accepted is very limited and far from meeting Turkey’s expectations and needs. Moreover, persistent requests of Turkey to participate in GSP committee have been rejected by the Commission so far, despite full alignment with the EU’s GSP Regime is already in place. Turkey expects a more constructive attitude from the Commission concerning the participation of our experts to this Committee.
We have not been able to participate in Trade Policy Committee meetings where the EU’s Common Commercial Policy is shaped. Moreover, no satisfactory alternative has been implemented so far to compensate Turkey’s lack of participation in the said Committee. In this context, if it is not possible for Turkey to participate in Trade Policy Committee where the EU’s trade policy is shaped, we propose to arrange “Consultation and Information Meetings” right before or after the said Committee meetings with the same agenda items. We could also be invited at ad hoc basis to the “Trade Policy Committee” meetings.
49 In conclusion, as a Customs Union partner without being a full member, Turkey’s requests to participate in committees should be evaluated taking into account the Customs Union relation between the parties.
Turkey’s difficulties in the area of alignment with the EU’s free trade agreements (FTAs)
According to the Article 16 of the Turkey-EC Customs Union Decision, it is foreseen that Turkey would align itself with the Common Commercial Policy of the EU. This provision envisages Turkey to negotiate and conclude FTAs with the EU’s FTA partners on a mutually advantageous basis.
In this context, Turkey has signed 27 FTAs, of which 10 of them have been terminated due to the enlargement of the EU in May 2004 and January 2007. Currently, 16 of these FTAs are in force (EFTA, Macedonia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, Israel, Palestine Authority, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Georgia, Montenegro, Serbia, Chile and Jordan.) The FTAs with Lebanon will enter into force once the internal ratification processes are completed.
Currently, negotiations are ongoing with 11 countries/country groups (Gulf Cooperation Council, MERCOSUR, Faroe Islands, Ukraine, Libya, Mauritius, Seychelles, South Korea, Malaysia, Cameroon and Democratic Republic of Congo), and we have initiated to launch negotiations with 11 countries/country groups (Algeria, Mexico, South African Customs Union, ASEAN, ANDEAN Community, Central America, African Caribbean States, India, Indonesia, Canada and Moldova).
Nevertheless, we would like to point out that we are still facing the “moving target problem” since the EU initiates and enforces FTAs in advance. There are two main reasons for the unwillingness of the third countries to start FTA negotiations with Turkey. First of all, once a third country negotiating an FTA with the EU becomes aware of the fact that due to Customs Union its goods can freely circulate into Turkey through EU borders, at least for tariff purposes the country loses its motivation to initiate an FTA with Turkey.
Secondly, Turkey’s implementation of EU’s GSP regime to the EU’s FTA partners which grants them a unilateral preference plays a discouraging role in persuading these countries to start FTA negotiations with Turkey.
As we all know, Mexico is an infamous case for granting unilateral preferences to a country (in the framework of the GSP), which constantly rejects to start FTA negotiations with Turkey. Moreover, Algeria is the only country, participating in the “Euro-Mediterranean Partnership”, with which Turkey could not initiate FTA negotiations either.
We have brought these problems and proposals into the attention of the Commission in every possible occasion, especially at the Customs Union Joint Committee meetings which is the major platform for discussing these issues.
At these meetings, we have been informed that the Commission has taken initiatives to solve this problem. Although all these attempts are appreciated, Turkey expects more concrete actions by the Commission. In this context, in order to facilitate Turkey’s timely adoption of
50 the FTAs which are already in force for the EU, it would be the most suitable solution to extend the FTAs to Turkey, for the products covered by the Customs Union, as in the cases of San Marino and Andorra. Moreover, as for the ongoing negotiations, in order to be swift in adopting the Common Commercial Policy, we deem it necessary to start FTA negotiations in parallel with the EU. Besides, it is crucial for us to receive the text of the Agreement, modalities for the Agreement and the text on rules of origin before the conclusion of the Agreement since receiving them after the entry into force of the Agreement lags Turkey behind the EU’s FTA process and prevents Turkey’s timely alignment to EU’s common commercial policy.
As you know, the implementation difference between Turkey and the EU regarding the FTAs brings trade diversion between the Parties at a serious level. As a matter of fact, it is revealed that, total trade value of diversion from Mexico, Algeria and South Africa through the EU was 240 million $ in 2009, and 440 million $ in 2010. As regards Mexico, 55% of these country origin goods are imported into Turkey via the EU member states in 2010.
Turkey has stated this problem and declared its intention to establish legislation for countervailing measures against EU’s FTA partners, which do not have a similar engagement with Turkey.
The draft legislation which is envisaged to be put in to force in 2011 has been conveyed to the EU side for its opinion. This legislation targets certain number of goods originating in Mexico, and imported through the EU counties into Turkey and rules that these products will be subject to additional import tax liability. The percentage of this countervailing tax will be defined by the tariff difference between the cases of direct importation and importation through the EU into Turkey. There will be no additional origin documentation for imports from the EU. Customs authorities will define the products subject to this countervailing duty according to the importers’ statement for origin on the customs declaration documents.
We deem it encouraging using our ultimate right to implement certain countervailing measures within the context of Customs Union Decision (Article 16.3 and/or Article 58.2) and WTO Agreement (Ad Article XXIV of the GATT, paragraph 9), against third countries that EU has signed an FTA but Turkey has not. Such an action should be considered as a mechanism to compensate the loss acquired through trade deflection as well as an efficient market access tool to persuade reluctant countries for starting FTA negotiations with Turkey.
In this context, we expect the Commission to demonstrate a collaborative approach on this legislation which will stimulate these countries to initiate FTA negotiations with Turkey on the way to eliminate the difficulties in establishing FTAs with the EU’s partners.
Road Quotas Imposed on Vehicles Registered In Turkey:
The problem stemming from the application of quotas imposed on road vehicles registered in Turkey by the EU member states is a major issue that the Turkish exporters and transporters are complaining for a long time. This issue has been brought on the agenda of several platforms including bilateral meetings both with the European Commission and individual Member States.
51 The issue has been lastly raised during the 25th Meeting of the Customs Union Joint Committee (CUJC) Meeting on 7 April 2011. During the said meeting, the Commission declined Turkish proposal to establish a Task Force for the preparation of an agreement which will liberalize transit road transportation between the parties.
As it has been consistently indicated by Turkey in various platform so far, the application of road quotas by the EU countries not only impedes the development of bilateral trade but also violates the Articles 4 and 5 of the Customs Union Decision which envisages the elimination of customs tariffs, quantitative restrictions and restrictions having equivalent effect between the parties for the purpose of free movement of goods.
As a result of quotas imposed by key transit countries such as Italy, Austria and Hungary, Turkish transporters have to bear additional distances and costs, therefore transportation costs increase and Turkish exports become more expensive which adversely affects Turkey’s competitiveness stemming from its geographical position. This situation in turn prevents further development of bilateral trade relations. In this respect, the elimination of quotas imposed on road vehicles registered in Turkey will clearly be beneficial for both parties.
In this framework, Ankara Agreement which established an association relationship between Turkey and the EU sets development of bilateral economic and trade relations in a sustained and balanced manner as one of the fundamental objectives of this relationship. In this respect, Turkey considers that quota implementation conflicts with this very fundamental objective alongside violating the basic principle of the Customs Union that is free movement of goods.
The Commission has so far argued that road quotas are more related to trade in services instead of the free movement of goods; actually there is not a liberalization concerning trade in services between the parties as the Customs Union does not govern trade in services; there is not any juridical document that imposes abolishment of road quotas between Turkey and the EU and therefore transport quotas are under the authority of the Member States.
Yet, this situation could not be the reason for maintaining this unfair barrier before trade, contrary to the very essence of the association relationship. Ensuring the proper functioning of the Customs Union and achieving the fundamental goals of the Association Agreement is the responsibility of each and every Member State along with the European Commission which is responsible for the proper implementation of the EU acquis of which the EU-Turkey Customs Union Decision is a part. Considering negative implications of this issue on functioning of the Customs Union and development of the bilateral trade, to find a solution to this problem both the Commission and the Member States should jointly take necessary measures.
In Turkey’s view, quotas are not only inconsistent with the very aim of the free movement of goods principle envisaged in the Customs Union Decision but also with the WTO rules, in particular Article V of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Entitled “Freedom of Transit”, Article V of the GATT aims to secure free transit traffic between WTO members. In spite of this definite provision emphasized in GATT V, road transit permit quotas imposed on Turkish transporters carrying Turkish export goods during their transit passages are considered inconsistent with the rules and spirit of the WTO Agreements.
52 In addition, it is a fact that the EU itself and all its individual Members States are members of the WTO. Therefore, both the EU and the Members States are obliged to fulfill the obligations stemming from the WTO Agreements.
In order to find a sustainable solution to the issue, initiatives will be pursued either on political and juridical level, in the upcoming period.
Visa Problems Faced By Turkish Businessmen:
The restrictive visa regime applied by the EU Member States towards Turkish nationals has serious repercussions on Turkey-EU trade relations within the framework of the Customs Union. Because of this restrictive visa regime, Turkish businessmen are facing difficulties in establishing trade relationships with their European counterparts and attending trade fairs although they ship samples and make the necessary payments for participation. There have been some cases, in which Turkish goods reached fairs in Europe, while the owners of these goods could not attend the fairs, as they could not receive a visa.
Thus, while goods freely circulate between Turkey and the EU, Turkish businessmen who produce these goods cannot freely travel and promote their products across Europe. Hence, this situation constitutes a non-tariff barrier to trade and is an indirect obstacle to free circulation of goods between the parties.
In order to issue a visa for business purposes, Schengen countries’ consulates request from Turkish businessmen more than 20 documents mostly containing personal and commercially confidential information. In addition, in case of bilateral business meetings, it is expected from Turkish businessmen to provide an invitation letter from their European counterparts. However, European businessmen can freely travel, conduct business relations and promote their products across Turkey. This inequality creates an unfair competition between Turkish and EU producers, which is inconsistent with the spirit of the Customs Union and the accession process of Turkey.
Restrictive visa regime applied for Turkish citizens also leads to unfair competition between the business people of Turkey and third countries such as Israel, Brazil, Mexico, Malaysia and Southern Korea, in terms of their access to the EU market.
However, while the EU introduces visa liberalization policy for Turkey’s periphery, this is still not the case for Turkey which has been a Customs Union partner for 15 years and conducting accession negotiations since 2005. Moreover, Turkey is one of the biggest trade partners of the EU ranking at the 5th place in EU’s exports and at 7th in EU’s imports. Considering its unique situation, Turkey should be subject to a much more favorable treatment than third country nationals.
Financial Cooperation
Regarding the Financial Cooperation, Turkey attaches great importance to the financial cooperation with the EU. From our perspective, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) ensures financial sources for better preparation of Turkey to fulfil the requirements of membership. The Multi-Annual Indicative Planning Document (MIPD) has been drafted and improved through a series of consultations with a participatory approach. This document that
53 covers 2011- 2013 period introduces the sectoral approach into programming of IPA Component I, which has direct focus on institution building, transposition of acquis, political criteria and civil society dialogue. There is no question that, sectoral approach will better address the needs of having big projects with bigger impact and longer sustainability. As you would appreciate, proper implementation of sectoral approach requires a smooth transition and its implications will be observed in due time. In this way, mutual responsibilities come into account in order for the actualization of the programmes to go in the viable and proper direction.
The lessons learnt from the previous programming exercises indicate that programming cycle requires special attention since it affects the implementation and eventually absorption of the funds. Therefore, having established the sectoral approach we will focus on improving project preparation capacities of the beneficiaries. In addition to various improvements achieved since 2010, training and structured guidance will be provided on a continuous basis. Nonetheless, while considering the success of the sectoral approach, outcomes of the ongoing and following programming exercises in the framework of this approach will be determinative for future actions of both parties. Moreover, further improvements need to be made to this approach on the basis of the possible problems that will be faced during the implementation of programmes. I think you appreciate the fact that desirable results of the proposed approach may not be observed in the short run since adaptation of beneficiary institutions requires time. It is noteworthy to mention that audit findings in relation with management and control systems of all DIS institutions have been dealt with due attention and taking corrective measures is ongoing while most of them have already been fulfilled. Among the others, the NIPAC Services’ staffing gap has been bridged considerably and its general coordination function has been reinforced.
Finally, I would like to slightly touch upon the increased pressure on our institutions functioning in the field of financial cooperation. Needless to say that for both sides’ ultimate genuine objective is effective and timely use of all funds earmarked for Turkey. However the whole system and its functioning is overwhelmingly geared by the EC which eventually leaves little room for us to rectify certain deficiencies. In this context, I also would like to refer to frequent changes in the implementation rules which are quite complicated. The frequent changes undermine the applicability of the rules.
Having regard to all these I deem it unfair and discouraging to put the pressure on Turkey more particularly in such a period in which discussions on future setting of the EU’s financial assistance after 2013 gain momentum.
I deem it appropriate to mobilize all our sources and intellect in order to give all related actors of the financial cooperation clear direction and courage that they need. In this spirit we expect that Turkey’s appropriations for the years beyond 2013 will not be affected by some minor misperceptions.
54