# CE2004078EN.01052601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/526 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/526

---

(2004/C 78 E/0547)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3343/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   European Convention on Human Rights in relation to third countries

Subject:

Since 1992, the EU has required the inclusion in all agreements with third countries of a clause concerning the observance of human rights. As far as the author of this question is aware, a number of instruments have been set up which the EU uses to achieve this objective, for example refusal to issue visas to members of certain regimes and the freezing of assets accumulated in EU Member States. The author entirely agrees with the need to insist on the observance of human rights and with the policy statements contained in the report on violation of women's rights and EU international relations, A5-0334/2003, in particular paragraphs I, 7, 8, 10 and 17. Will the Commission, therefore, say what practical measures it has taken in regard to regimes which do not observe human rights in their legislation and administration?

Under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State — or international organisation such as the EU — has the right to withdraw from an agreement if a third party infringes significant conditions of the agreement. In the light of this provision, will the Commission say whether this has actually occurred with reference to the provisions of the agreements concerning respect for human rights? The author is aware that the EU has taken measures in regard to countries such as Kenya, Nigeria, Zambia, Egypt, Pakistan etc. Apart from those agreements, from which agreements has the EU actually withdrawn on the grounds of infringement of the Convention on Human Rights?

Finally, will the Commission say how many times visas have been refused to regime members and assets frozen in EU Member States on grounds of infringement of the Convention on Human Rights?

What specific measures have been taken since the 1992 decision to incorporate in all EU agreements with third countries a clause concerning respect for human rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

(23 December 2003)

The Commission refers to its response to written question E-2903/03 by Mrs Smet (1).

1

In addition to this response, the Commission notes that the human rights clause is a dynamic instrument through which the Union can advance human rights in a positive manner. The inclusion of an essential elements clause is not intended to signify a negative or punitive approach. It is, instead, meant to promote dialogue and positive measures, such as joint support for democracy and human rights, the accession, ratification and implementation of international human rights instruments where these are lacking, as well as the prevention of crises through the establishment of a consistent and long-term relationship.

The Commission Communication of 1995 (2) makes clear that there are a range of measures which could be considered in the event of a breach of the clause, with the proviso that the application of measures should respect ‘the principle of proportionality between the breach cited and the degree of reaction’. The Union has never fully withdrawn from a cooperation agreement, but sometimes has suspended its application.

2

It should be noted that issuing visas is normally not regulated in these agreements. Hence, it is not necessary to suspend an existing Community agreement with a third country in order to adopt a visa ban. Rather, this measure can be decided unilaterally by the European Union as a matter of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In practice, visa bans have been directed against representatives of Zimbabwe, Angola, Nigeria, Sudan and Zaire as a complementary measure to the suspension of the Lomé/Cotonou agreement with these countries. The EU has also adopted visa bans against Burma, Afghanistan, Belarus, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and Libya which are not linked to the Community with any international agreement at all.

With regard to the freezing of assets, this has been exercised in relation to Afghanistan, Burma, the former FRY, Iraq and Libya, which, again, have not concluded any agreement with the Community so far Angola and Haiti, which are signatories to the Lomé/Cotonou agreement, were subject to the freezing of assets under a decision to suspend cooperation with these countries under this agreement.

---

(1)  See page 441.

1

(2)  See annex 2 of the Communication on the inclusion of respect for democratic principles and human rights in agreements between the Community and third countries for a list of measures that may be taken in the event of a serious human rights violations, COM(95)216 final.

2

---