Strasbourg, 12 February 2004. In its reply to a question lodged (H-0844/03) by the Radical MEP Olivier Dupuis, the Commission underlines in particular that it "is entirely aware of the state of progress of the process of ratification of the stabilisation and association agreement (SAA) with Croatia, signed in 2001: three Member States have yet to finalise the ratification of the agreement: Italy, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. The latter two have formally suspended the process of ratification; they will not resume it until Croatia co-operates fully with the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia (ICCY)."

Statement by Olivier Dupuis, Member of the European Parliament, Radical

"There is something strange in the attitude of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands towards Croatia, and in particular towards the prospect of membership of the Union for that country. From a juridical point of view, there is no doubt that they are perfectly within their rights not to ratify the stabilisation and association agreement. From a political point of view, on the other hand, it is clearly more questionable, in that they did not indicate the slightest opposition in 2001 when the stabilisation and association agreement was signed, nor, previously, as it was being drawn up. That the British and the Dutch believe that Croatia’s full collaboration with the International Court is essential for the opening of negotiations for membership is perfectly legitimate. They are, moreover, not the only ones who think this. What is much less justifiable is that they should place their veto on the process of ratification of the stabilisation and association agreement and, since it is a preliminary condition for the opening of the membership process, on membership itself. If they were to follow a correct approach, the two countries would make any reservations about the opening of negotiations for membership known during the debate in the Council on the basis of the forthcoming evaluation report of the Commission (which includes the question of collaboration with the Court). What is the reason for these devious manoeuvres? To reassure electors already terrified by the enlargement in May? This would be strange on the part of a country that has always been a champion of the great European market! So what is the reason? The old myths of 1914, and a desire not to favour Croatia to the detriment of Serbia? As if two entirely peaceful changeovers of power in Croatia could be compared to the enormous difficulties that Serbia is having in settling with the past! As if it were not in the interest of everyone, including Serbia, to extend the borders of the European Union in the region as rapidly as possible! Could the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the other Member States finally clarify their position on these issues?"