WRITTEN QUESTION P-1600/99 by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission. Conditions under which Mr Ashot Bleyan, former Education Minister of the Republic of Armenia, is being held.
Date: 1999-09-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Armenia, criminal procedure, cruel and degrading treatment, human rights, prison system, rights of the defence

20.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 170 E/47

Is the Council monitoring the human rights situation in Uzbekistan particularly in regard to the treatment
of converts to Christianity and what representations has it made to the Government of Uzbekistan in
relation to the above-mentioned four prisoners?

Reply

(29 November 1999)

The Council is closely monitoring the human rights situation in Uzbekistan.

The EU is regularly raising this issue with the Uzbek authorities. In a demarche in Tashkent in July 1999
and in the First Cooperation Council EU-Uzbekistan on 13 September 1999, the Union expressed concern
on the freedom of religion and in particular the ill-treatment of Christians in Uzbekistan. It encouraged the
Uzbek government, in the framework of the recently concluded Partnership and Cooperation Agreement
and in the light of Uzbekistan(cid:146)s OSCE commitments, to respect the international principles of freedom and
religion. The EU also expressed strong concern about imprisonment on the grounds of political or
religious belief and about prison conditions in Uzbekistan.

The Council will continue to closely monitor the human rights situation in Uzbekistan in all its aspects
and address the issue regularly with the Uzbek authorities.

(2000/C 170 E/052)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1600/99

by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission

(7 September 1999)

Subject: Conditions under which Mr Ashot Bleyan, former Education Minister of the Republic of Armenia,

is being held

According to his lawyer and to information in the press, Mr Ashot Bleyan, former Education Minister of
the Republic of Armenia, who has been in prison for several months, has been beaten and placed in
solitary confinement.

What information does the Commission have about Mr Ashot Bleyan, particularly as regards the charges
made against him, compliance by the authorities with the rules of penal procedure, the conditions under
which he is being held and his current state of health?

In more general terms, what steps has the Commission taken or does it intend to take to ensure that
Mr Ashot Bleyan benefits from the rights of any accused person to a legal defence and to proper treatment
that complies with the international rules governing the holding of prisoners?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 1999)

The Commission has been following the detention and legal proceedings brought against former Education
Minister Ashot Bleyan by the Armenian authorities, charging him with civil and criminal offences
including embezzlement.

The Commission is concerned by reports alleging that Mr Bleyan has been subjected to beatings while in
custody leading to a serious deterioration in his health. The Commission is urgently seeking clarification
on these allegations from the Armenian authorities.

The partnership and cooperation agreement (PCA) with Armenia, which entered into force in June 1999,
provides a basis for discussion of human rights issues which will be on the agenda and discussed at the
forthcoming meeting of the cooperation council on October 12th 1999.

C 170 E/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2000

To assist Armenia to meet its rule of law and human rights obligations under the PCA and its application
for membership of the Council of Europe, the Commission is about to launch a € 1 million programme
for training of the Armenia judiciary and has allocated funds to help Armenia to improve compliance with
the European Convention on human rights in a joint programme with the Council of Europe.

(2000/C 170 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1601/99

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 September 1999)

Subject: Transposition of the EC television Directive (cid:129) Inter-L(cid:228)nder Treaty

Article 10(1) of the EC television Directive (Dir 89/0552/EEC (1) as amended by Dir 97/0036/EC (2))
requires clear separation between advertising and programmes. This principle of separation between
advertising and programmes has now been incorporated into German broadcasting law. Section 7(4) of
the third German Inter-L(cid:228)nder Treaty on Broadcasting 1997, lays down the same principle. A new Inter-
L(cid:228)nder Treaty on Broadcasting is currently being prepared. On 24 June 1999 the German Land prime
ministers approved the draft fourth amending Inter-L(cid:228)nder Treaty on Broadcasting; it now must be ratified
in all 16 Land parliaments and is due to come into force on 1 April 2000. A new Section 7(4) has been
inserted which reads as follows:

A transmitted image may include advertising, provided that the advertising is clearly optically separate
from the rest of the programme and identified as such.

Section 7(4) thus allows broadcasters to split a screen image into a programme and an advertising window
at the same time. Much the same applies to what is termed virtual advertising, involving the technical
capability to subsequently alter an image so that either complete advertising messages are inserted into the
image or an existing advert is modified. The insertion of virtual advertising is to be allowed under the
fourth amending Inter-L(cid:228)nder Treaty on Broadcasting, pursuant to Section 7(6), provided that reference is
made to this at the start and end of the broadcast in question and an existing advert is to be replaced.

Taking this into consideration:

1.

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, is there an infringement of the principle of separation under Article 10 of
the EC television Directive if advertising and programming are allowed at the same time and they are
simply physically separate on screen?

2.

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, is it compatible with the EC television Directive to allow virtual advertising?

3.

Is the Commission acquainted with the expert opinions, which have led to a major change in legal
interpretation, that a time-delay between advertising and programmes is not mandatory?

4.

If so, what are the expert opinions in question?

5. How does the Commission assess the intended amendments in the fourth amending Inter-L(cid:228)nder

Treaty on Broadcasting due to come into force in Germany on 1 April 2000?

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.
(2) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.