ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/767

(2004/C 78 E/0817)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2929/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: Situation of Thich Tri Luc, a Vietnamese citizen enjoying HCR refugee status, kidnapped in Cambodia and awaiting trial in Vietnam

In its answer to Question E-2607/03 (1),. the Commission states that it is extremely concerned about the situation of the Venerable Thich Tri Luc (aged 49, secular name Pham Van Tuong), a member of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV) a long-standing human rights campaigner, who is being held in Ho Chi Minh City. His trial, originally announced by the Vietnamese Government for 1 August 2003, has been postponed sine die. The Vietnamese authorities have refused to answer questions from the United Nations High Commissioner. On 12 September, in flat contradiction to his previous statements, the Vietnamese Foreign Minister acknowledged that Thich Tri Luc had been secretly held for a year, claiming that he had been ‘arrested at the frontier post in Tay Ninh province’, on Vietnamese territory, on 26 July 2002; the Minister announced that he would be tried under Article 91 of the Penal Code, for having attempted to ‘escape abroad with the intention of contacting organisations there with a view to undermining the Vietnamese Government’. Persons charged under this Article face sentences ranging from three years to life imprisonment.

How has the Commission reacted to this blatant contempt for the UN's mechanisms for protecting refugees, and the major violations of human rights involved? Does the Commission intend to propose to the Member States that they raise this case of violation of refugee status with the relevant UN bodies? What measures does it intend to take to persuade the Vietnamese authorities to set the Venerable Thich Tri Luc at liberty immediately and unconditionally? Does the Commission not believe that the Vietnamese attitude in this matter constitutes sufficient grounds for radically revising the Union's aid and cooperation policy with Vietnam, particularly as regards the plan for legal reform over the next ten years?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

The Commission wishes to recall that its reply given to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2607/03 (2) on the same issue remains entirely valid in the light of recent developments. The following elements complement the Commission's previous answer.

The circumstances of Thich Tri Luc's arrest remain unclear. The Commission is concerned about Luc's incommunicado detention. The Commission will therefore continue to seek clarifications from the Vietnamese authorities.

The case of Thich Tri Luc illustrates that the implementation and regular update of the ten year legal reforms plan of the Government of Vietnam is of crucial importance with a view to enhance good governance and a properly functioning judiciary system. These objectives are priorities for Community cooperation with Vietnam under the Country Strategy Paper 2002-2006.

(1) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 186.

(2) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 186.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/29

(2004/C 88 E/0031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1414/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 April 2003)

Subject: Burma refugee acceptance into Thailand

What action is the European Commission taking to urge the Thai authorities to continue to accept refugees from Burma and not refuse them entry into Thailand or forcibly repatriate them?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2003)

The Thai authorities have, for a number of years now, been providing shelter to about 130 000 displaced people from Burma/Myanmar, mainly of ethnic minority origin, in camps near the Thai-Burmese border.

The Community provides significant financial support for the maintenance of these refugee camps, through European non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Its assistance predominantly takes the form of provision of food and basic goods, as well as medical assistance and training. In recent years, the Community has allocated approximately EUR 7 to 7,5 million per year to these activities.

As the single most important donor in the international community, the Commission holds an open dialogue with the Thai authorities on all questions relating to the latter's acceptance and treatment of refugees.

In general terms, the Commission expects Thailand to honour its commitment to international humanitarian standards in dealing with refugees from Burma/Myanmar. This implies the admission of Burmese refugees into Thai territory, full co-operation with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), and repatriation of refugees only on a voluntary basis and conditional on the improvement of the situation in Burma/Myanmar.

The Commission has in the past and again recently expressed to the Thai administration its concerns about reports concerning the refusal of registration of new Burmese refugees, as well as forced repatriation.

The Commission's Delegation in Thailand will continue to monitor the situation in co-ordination with the representatives of the Member States and will recommend possible further actions as appropriate.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/463

(2004/C 88 E/0475)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3476/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Disappearance of Ethiopian, a former coordinator for EU Aid

Mr Amanti Abdisa Jigi was head of the development department of the Oromo Relief Association (ORA) before the Ethiopian office was forcibly closed and all assets were seized by the Ethiopian government in 1996. ORA was an officially recognised relief agency whose contributors included Norwegian People's Aid, Comic Relief, Christian Aid and the European Commission. Mr Abdisa challenged this closure in court, but to no avail. On 20 August 2000 Mr Abdisa was upon his arrival to the Addis Ababa airport, escorted off of the plane in transit to a conference in Kenya and detained by Ethiopian Government forces. On 25 January 2003 Mr Abdisa was seen being transported from the Bole area of Addis Ababa, near the airport, to a destination believed to be the Shoa Robit prison. His detention violates both international law and the Ethiopian constitution which states that anyone who is detained should be brought to a court within 48 hours and given a prompt and fair trial according to international standards.

Since the European Commission has committed EUR 500 million to its programme in Ethiopia over the next four years, is the office aware of Mr Abdisa's disappearance? Can the Commission indicate whether or not it is planning to question various levels of the Ethiopian Government about the control of prisons, namely Mr Abdisa's whereabouts and the official legal charges against him? ORA covers the territory of the Oromo Liberation Front Oromia region, which makes up about 40 % of the total population in Ethiopia. Challenges in this region have consequences for Europe as there is an ORA office in Germany helping Ethiopian refugees.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

The Commission has made several unsuccessful attempts to trace Mr Amanti. Neither the Ministry of Justice, nor the Federal Prisons Authority has any record of his whereabouts. Following the Honourable Member's information that Mr Amanti may be in detention in Shoa Robit, the Commission Delegation in Addis Ababa contacted, through a Member State, the Federal Prisons Authority requesting a search in the Shoa records. The Commission will keep the Honourable Member informed of any progress.

Any further information which may assist in the search for Mr Amanti would be very welcome to the Commission. In the Commission's experience, the Ministry of Justice and Federal Prisons Authority are helpful in providing information, even in potentially sensitive cases, as long as records exist. The Commission is concerned that, for a variety of reasons, such records may simply not exist for Mr Amanti. No organisation in Ethiopia contacted by the Commission has any records of Mr Amanti.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/171

(2004/C 78 E/0175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2809/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject: Innovative actions in the fisheries sector, 2003/C 115/08

Under reference No 2003/C 115/08 the Commission published a competition for innovative actions in the fisheries sector (1).

The Notice of the Competition fails to provide two essential elements, namely the dates on which a decision will be taken and the competitors informed of the outcome.

When does the Commission intend to rectify this omission?

When and in what shape can I have access to the list of projects approved?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2003)

The section ‘Duration of project, date foreseen for closing the awarding procedure and admissible financing period’ in point 2.3 of the call for proposals referred to states:‘... the date foreseen for closing the awarding procedure is 15 October 2003. Projects are expected to start on 1 December 2003’. Therefore, as this indicative timetable implies, the selection procedure for proposals received will be completed by the end of 2003 and applicants will then be informed directly by mail of the outcome of their proposal(s).

Once the beneficiaries have given their assent by signing their grant agreements, the Commission will publish a list of projects and beneficiaries and the amounts granted.

(1) OJ C 115, 15.5.2003.
2.

Through a protocol to the Europe Agreement adopted in July 1998, the Czech Republic committed itself to aligning its legislation on the State Aid rules of the Community. This commitment was translated into Czech legislation by the State Aid Act that entered into force on 1 May 2000. The Act made the Office for the Protection of Economic Competition the Czech State Aid monitoring authority. Therefore, in the pre-accession period, while the content of the applicable State Aid rules in the Czech Republic are aligned on the State Aid rules of the Community, the enforcement of these rules rests with the Office for the Protection of Economic Competition. The investment scheme requires every individual aid granted under it to be notified to the Office for the Protection of Economic Competition. This office has assessed whether the individual tax exemptions are compatible with the ‘acquis’, in particular the Community guidelines on national regional aid. Under the Europe Agreement, the Commission has engaged itself in an ongoing process of contacts with the Office for the Protection of Economic Competition and other Czech authorities, in order to ensure that tax breaks and other investment schemes are compatible with the State Aid rules of the Community. These contacts have led the Czech authorities to enact amendments to the investment incentives legislation in order to align the schemes further with the practice in the EU. After accession, any new aid, or any modification of existing aid has to be notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/20

(2004/C 84 E/0022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2419/03

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Al Sahri deported by Italy and executed in Syria

On 23 November 2002 Mohamad Al Sahri, sentenced to death by the Syrian judiciary and in exile since 1983, arrived at the Milan airport of Malpensa and five days later the new Bossi-Fini law was carried out and he was deported to Syria against his will. On 9 July 2003 Christopher Hein, chairman of the Italian council for refugees, announced that Mr Al Shari had been executed in Syria on 28 February 2003. Defying credibility, Italian immigration authorities have stated that Mr Al Sahri, asked to choose between Jordan and Syria for his deportation, indicated his preference for the latter where he had been sentenced to death.

Does the Council believe that the Italian government violated in this case not only its own national Constitution, but Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the spirit and the letter of all the directives followed by the EU on political asylum and against deporting foreign citizens to countries where they might be put to death?

What measures does the Council intend to take against the Italian authorities for such a blatant violation of human rights and of the most basic legal and humanitarian principles of the European Union?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

The Honourable Member is referred to the joint reply given by the Council to Questions P-3822/02 and E-3843/02. Furthermore, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that it cannot intervene in actual asylum application cases in the Member States.

The Council can, however, inform the Honourable Member that in the light of the latest information available to it, Mr Al Sahri was released conditionally on 13 October this year.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/714

(2004/C 84 E/0802)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0199/03

by Margot Keßler (PSE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject: Western Sahara — Visit of European Parliament Ad Hoc Delegation — Human Rights

The European Parliament Ad Hoc Delegation for the Western Sahara visited Laayoune, the capital of this non-self-governing territory, on 12 March 2002. A meeting with members of the civil society, including Saharawi human rights activists, was held in Laayoune Parador Hotel.

The meeting took place at the request of the European Delegation, which raised the question of the safety of the civil society members. The Delegation chair, Catherine Lalumiere MEP, promised to give every guarantee that the participants in the meeting would not undergo intimidation by the Moroccan authorities following this meeting. After their meeting with the MEPs, the president and a large number of members of the local human rights NGO ‘Forum for Truth and Justice: Sahara Section’ who participated in the meeting were prosecuted by the occupying Moroccan authorities. The Saharawi participants were the president of the NGO, Mr Moutik Lahoussine, Mr Eddymaoui Abdessalem, Mr Ennassiri Ahmed, Mr Elmoussaoui Edkhil and Mr Mohamed Elmoutaouikil.

Mr Moutik Lahoussine was fired from his job (in the company Sepomer Sahara SARI) due to his meeting with the European Parliament Ad Hoc Delegation. The other members of the Saharawi delegation were detained on several occasions and prosecuted for political reasons.

Several members of the Sahara section of the Truth and Justice Forum and Saharawi human rights militants have currently been targeted by intimidation measures.

What is the European Commission doing against these violations of human rights?

As the Kingdom of Morocco is the occupying power in Western Sahara, what kind of action at diplomatic level is the European Commission taking in this respect to improve the situation of the above-mentioned persons who met the Ad Hoc Delegation?

What kind of measures can the European Commission provide concerning the next European Parliament missions to this non-self-governing territory?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2003)

The relations between Morocco and the Union are governed by the Association Agreement and the questions related to human rights as well as those connected with the Western Sahara are treated in the framework of the political dialogue (Article 2) during the Association Councils and Committees.

In the future months, the Union and Morocco are expected to engage in a even more constructive dialogue on the questions of democratic principles and human rights which will lead to the possibility of discussing alleged cases of ill-treatment, including the present one.

Regarding the next missions of the Parliament to the territory of the Western Sahara, which are organised by the services of the Parliament, the Commission remains at the Honourable Member's disposal for any information she might consider necessary.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/23

(2004/C 88 E/0025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1312/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject: The situation of Mrs Siham Qandah, a Jordanian Christian

The Commission may be aware of the situation of Mrs Siham Qandah, a Jordanian Christian whose husband died in 1994 whilst serving in the Jordanian Army. After his death the Jordanian authorities claimed that he had converted to Islam and have subsequently confiscated his children to ensure that they are raised as Muslims.

Has the Commission:

1. Made representations to the Jordanian Government about the situation of Mrs Siham Qandah?

2. Other plans, to try to ensure that the Jordanian authorities respect the human rights of the Christian minority in their country?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Mrs Qandah's situation is related to the wider problem of compatibility of the application of the Shari'ah law and the international human rights conventions that Jordan has signed, but not yet fully transformed into internal law. It is our concern that the application of Shari'ah law in Jordan, a country where Islam is the state religion, could provoke great distress in families whose members are of mixed Christian and Muslim faith and lead to results which are incompatible with these conventions.

The Commission is closely monitoring the individual case of Mrs Siham Qandah. The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that the question of the defence of human rights and in particular of those of women and children is considered of prime importance by the Commission and has been raised with the Jordanian authorities on many occasions. It will continue to stress its importance in its future contacts.

Jordan is a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. During his recent visit to Jordan, the Member of the Commission in charge of external relations raised the need for Jordan to implement effectively its commitments to international human rights agreements, especially those reinforcing the rights of women and children. Since then the Jordanian Government has set up the Centre for the Protection of Human Rights to channel complaints on human rights abuses cases, an initiative that has been supported by the Community. The Commission lays great importance on the work of this centre which should become a flagship institution for the protection of human rights in Jordan.

In the framework of the Union-Jordan Association Agreement, which entered into force on 1 May 2002, the Union and Jordan are establishing a continuous political dialogue at the highest level. This includes issues relating to human rights as well as monitoring the application of international conventions adopted by either party.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/580

(2004/C 78 E/0613)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3543/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject: Free movement of Bulgarians

Could the Commission please explain what the policy is on freedom of movement for Bulgarian citizens and Bulgarians with refugee status in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2004)

As the Honourable Member knows, Bulgaria will be a Candidate Country until their planned accession in 2007. Until 2007, provided accession takes place that year, Bulgarian nationals will be considered as third country nationals. Bulgarian nationals can enter the Union and move freely within the Schengen area for a period of up to three months.

As regards movement of Bulgarian workers, applications for residence and work permits are subject to the conditions and modalities in each Member State. There is however a provision in the Europe Agreement according to which the existing facilities for access to employment for Bulgarian workers accorded by Member States under bilateral agreements ought to be preserved and if possible improved. As to the establishment of Bulgarian companies and nationals in the territory of a Member State, Bulgarian nationals have a right under the Europe agreement to a treatment no less favourable than that accorded to the Member State's own nationals. The scope of the latter provision has been clarified in European Court of Justice case law.

The Honourable Member may be aware that on 25 November 2003 the Council adopted the Directive concerning the status of third country nationals who are long-term residents in a Member State (1). In accordance with Chapter III of that Directive, third country nationals (including Bulgarian citizens) who have been legally resident in a Member State for five years or more can benefit under certain conditions from a consolidated status on which basis they can enjoy the right to reside and work in other Member States. This Directive will have to be transposed by Member States into national legislation by November 2005 at the latest.

However, that Directive does not apply to those third country nationals who are refugees. The rights of refugees are set out in the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees of which all Member States are signatories. At this stage there is no Community law governing the freedom of movement of refugees in the Union.

(1) Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003, OJ L 16, 23.1.2004, p. 44.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/85

(2004/C 88 E/0092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2402/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Turkey: book-burning and State jobs for 15 000 imams

Western books considered ideologically incorrect according to Islam were recently burnt publicly on the orders of the judiciary in Turkey. It has also recently been reported that the Turkish government has decided to employ 15 000 imams at public expense to promote the Muslim faith further.

Does the Commission consider that these events constitute steps along the road to the ‘new’ Turkey's accession to the EU and adoption of its values?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the issue mentioned by the Honourable Member about judgements concerning the public burning of books.

As regards the appointment of additional imams, the Commission is aware of a proposal of the Bureau of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) intended to fill vacancies existing in Turkey for Moslem cleric personnel. According to our information this proposal has not been adopted by the Government.

As a Candidate Country, Turkey has undertaken to comply with the Copenhagen political criteria. These criteria imply freedom of religion for all religious groups. The Commission makes a detailed assessment of the situation in the area of freedom of religion in its Regular Report published annually, and will continue to monitor developments.