tions of the EU Member States were consulted. According to the common position, it will apply for a 12-month period and will be kept under constant review. It will be renewed for a mandate as appropriate, in particular as regards the Burmese State-owned enterprises, as listed in Annex 2, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.
Decisions to amend Annex 2 are therefore taken by unanimity. The Council is not in a position to comment on the inclusion of individual enterprises. As regards the monitoring of the implementation, it can be noted that in Spring 2004 the Council created at technical level a working party dedicated to exchanging experiences and developing best practice in the implementation and application of restrictive measures.
It has started its work and is monitoring the implementation of the guidelines and evaluating restrictive measures within the framework of the CFSP adopted by the Council last year, notably to check whether EU restrictive measures are affected. 
De Rossa (PSE ).
    Mr President-in-Office, the most remarkable part of your reply is that you cannot comment on the individual companies I have enquired about. I fail to understand why you cannot tell me and this House why these three state energy, timber and telecoms companies are excluded from the common position.
Can you tell me which states opposed the inclusion of these three important Burmese state enterprises? Do companies, either state companies or private companies in these states, already have joint enterprises with these important companies in Burma? 
Nicolaï,
   . It is an issue under discussion in the Council. I cannot add anything to what I said earlier. 
De Rossa (PSE ).
   You cannot inform the House which Member States are opposing the inclusion of these three companies? The Council is either open or it is not. Why is it opposing the inclusion of these three companies in the common position and how can these sanctions be effective if they are not including the energy, timber and telecoms sectors