WRITTEN QUESTION P-0642/00 by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Commission's position regarding the arrest of Kurdish mayors in Turkey.
Date: 2000-02-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Kurdistan question, Türkiye, diplomatic relations, government violence, political prisoner

C 330 E/196

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2000)

The Commission(cid:146)s attention has been drawn to the plan to which the Honourable Member is referring.

In the absence of social security harmonisation, each Member State is responsible for determining all the
specific characteristics of its social legislation as long as, in doing so, it respects Community law.

However, there are Community rules which coordinate the different national social security systems,
contained in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) and its implementing Regulation No 574/72, and which aim
to eliminate obstacles to the free movement of workers and members of their families, by guaranteeing
certain fundamental principles such as equal treatment with nationals, exportability of social security
benefits within the Community, aggregation of insurance periods and the prevalence of one applicable
body of legislation.

The above-mentioned rules for coordinating Member States(cid:146) social security systems protect the rights of
migrant workers in so far as they are nationals of the European Union or the European Economic Area.
Moreover, Tunisian, Moroccan, Algerian and Turkish nationals who are legally residing in a Member State
also benefit from equal treatment with respect to social security due to agreements between their country
of origin and the Community. Nationals from non-member countries residing in Member States cannot
refer to Community law in order to receive equal treatment with nationals. As a result, when the Austrian
authorities introduce the conditions for entitlement and the new social security allowance, they will have
to respect the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality, which implies that Commun-
ity nationals and the nationals of the four above-mentioned countries will benefit from the allowance
under the same conditions as Austrian nationals.

In addition, in 1997, the Commission already proposed to extend the field of application of Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 to cover nationals of all non-member countries who
are insured under a Member State(cid:146)s legislation and who are legally residing in the Community. The Council
is still reviewing this proposal (2).

Furthermore, the Commission also recently adopted a proposal to simplify and reform the rules for
coordinating Member States(cid:146) social security systems (3), which covers every person insured by social
security legislation in a Member State and which also protects nationals of non-member countries. In
accordance with the co-decision principle, Parliament and the Council are currently reviewing this
proposal, which can only be adopted by a unanimous decision.

(1) Latest consolidated version: Regulation (EC) No 118/97 (OJ L 28, 30.10.1997).
(2) OJ C 6, 1.1.1998.
(3) OJ C 38, 12.2.1999.

(2000/C 330 E/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0642/00

by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: Commission(cid:146)s position regarding the arrest of Kurdish mayors in Turkey

At the European Parliament part-session on 1 December 1999, Commissioner G(cid:252)nter Verheugen, on
behalf of the Commission, gave a positive assessment of political developments within Turkey with regard
to the country(cid:146)s status as an applicant for accession.

In the light of the arrest of the Kurdish mayors of Diyarbakir, Siirt and Bing(cid:246)l, Feridun Celik, Selim (cid:214)zalp
and Feyzullah Kararslan, by the Turkish police and paramilitary special units on 19 February 2000:

1.

2.

does the Commission stand by its positive assessment?

does the Commission regard the intensified action by the Turkish authorities against democratically
elected Kurdish representatives and the Kurdish party Hadep as part of these (cid:145)positive(cid:146) developments?

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/197

3. or does the Commission assess these measures by the Turkish authorities differently? If that is the
case, namely if the Commission agrees that a critical, negative assessment is to be given of the Turkish
action against Kurdish politicians, what does it consider to be the implications for relations between
the EU and Turkey, in particular with regard to implementing the regulations on the implementation
of measures to promote economic and social development in Turkey and on the implementation of
measures to intensify the EC-Turkey customs union, as well as to Turkey(cid:146)s proposed accession to the
European Union? What steps does the Commission intend to take in practice?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2000)

Having learned of the arrest on 19 February 2000 of three mayors belonging to the HADEP party, the
Commission, in close co-ordination with the Presidency and the Member States, informed the Turkish
authorities of its concern at the situation of the three elected representatives.

The three men in question were released on bail on 28 February 2000, and were reinstated in their posts
on 29 February 2000.

It is not the role of the Commission to pronounce judgment on the character of the legal proceedings
taken against these three elected politicians. However, the Commission was concerned that these events
might further complicate the vital dialogue between the Turkish authorities and HADEP, a political party
which has come to represent a large part of that section of the population which is of Kurdish origin. The
Commission was also concerned for the consequences these events might have on Turkey(cid:146)s preparations
for accession to the Union.

(2000/C 330 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0644/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(25 February 2000)

Subject: The behaviour of Belgium and France towards Austria

For a number of days now Belgium and France have been pursuing an offensive policy of isolating Austria
because of their fear that the FP(cid:214)(cid:146)s participation in the government could pose a threat to human rights
and the protection of minorities in Austria. At the same time, Belgium and France are the only countries,
apart from Turkey, which have neither ratified nor signed the Council of Europe(cid:146)s framework agreement
on the protection of national minorities.

Is there any justification for France(cid:146)s and Belgium(cid:146)s behaviour given that the two countries have still
1.
not ratified or signed the Council of Europe(cid:146)s framework agreement on the protection of national
minorities and that the two countries do not guarantee the minimum European standard of protection of
minorities?

2.
Does every country, regardless of its own political history or circumstances (for example, France(cid:146)s
(cid:145)empty chair(cid:146) policy in the 1960s or Great Britain(cid:146)s veto policy), have the right to isolate without any legal
basis a trustworthy member of the European Union?

Reply

(2 May 2000)

It would not be appropriate for the Council to take a view on actions which have been taken by one or
more of the Governments of the Member States and which have no direct bearing on the work of the
Council. Any such action is a matter for the Governments of the Member States concerned.