WRITTEN QUESTION E-1020/00 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Five cases of torture and violation of human rights in Turkey.
Date: 2000-04-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Türkiye, common foreign and security policy, torture

C 26 E/144

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.1.2001

3. According to the Council(cid:146)s information, from 1997 to 1999, how many people were injured in the
process of their, in some cases illegal, border crossing because of the use of direct force or physical
violence and how many inquiries or disciplinary proceedings were opened as a result and what was
the outcome in each case (please give details)?

4. According to the Council(cid:146)s information, from 1997 to 1999, how many people died during their
attempt (in some cases illegal) to enter the European Union (lack of oxygen, hunger, thirst, cold,
excessive heat during transport)?

Reply

(8 June 2000)

The Council has no statistics enabling it to answer the Honourable Member(cid:146)s questions.

(2001/C 26 E/179)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1020/00

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Five cases of torture and violation of human rights in Turkey

In the past week, several newspapers, non-governmental organisations and sources from the International
Red Cross and the UN have brought to Parliament(cid:146)s attention the serious case of five Turkish professionals,
engineers and entrepreneurs (cid:129) Halil Muftuoglu, Emre Nil, Ferhat Terkoglu, Hasan Basri Guner and Timur
Ayan (cid:129) who, after prolonged and excruciating torture, were forced to sign false confessions to crimes
against the state. According to the victims(cid:146) declarations and evidence gathered from several sources, but
not reported by the Turkish press, the torture comprised electric shocks to the testicles, jets of freezing
water and beatings with clubs wrapped in towels to avoid bruising. The torture was inflicted by officers
and officials of the Istanbul directorate for organised crime, a body which is part of
the Turkish
government(cid:146)s criminal investigation department. All five are now being detained in Bayrampasa prison
while awaiting trial.

1.
Does the Commission not consider that these continuing grave violations of human rights provide a
startling contradiction to the statements made by the Prime Minister, Mr Ecevit, and the entire Turkish
government to the effect that the reform of the judicial system, which should facilitate Turkey(cid:146)s accession
to the EU, is already under way?

2.
Does the President of the Commission, Mr Romano Prodi, not consider that the essentially positive
opinion expressed by the Commissioner for enlargement, Mr Verheugen, after his recent visit to Istanbul,
on the progress achieved by Turkey in this regard is largely unjustifiable, or at the very least, premature?

3.
Should the Commission not ask the Turkish government to provide immediate explanations for the
inhuman treatment of the five aforementioned prisoners before starting negotiations on the accession of
Turkey to the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

The Commission has been concerned about certain events relating to the human rights situation in Turkey
that have occurred since the Helsinki European Council. On each occasion it has taken a firm stance.

In general, it is asking the Turkish Government to show a clearer commitment to democratisation. This
was the position taken by the Member of the Commission responsible for enlargement on his most recent
visit to Turkey on 9 and 10 March 2000.

26.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 26 E/145

The case raised by the Honourable Member is indeed now before the Turkish courts. The Commission has
itself received a large number of letters about the case and has answered that it is taking the allegations
very seriously and will be asking the Turkish authorities for an explanation.

It is true that the foundation with which the five people referred to by the Honourable Member are
associated raises certain questions, given the anti-Semitic views expressed and published on its Internet site,
but if the reports of how they have been treated turn out to be correct, it is completely unacceptable.

(2001/C 26 E/180)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1025/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Council

(28 March 2000)

Subject: Council(cid:146)s contradictory attitude to ending the boycott on Austria

At question time to the Council at the Strasbourg part-session, Mr Seixas de Costa, speaking on behalf of
the Council, replied to my question about the possibility of the Member States(cid:146) restoring diplomatic
relations with Austria. According to Mr Seixas da Costa it is quite possible for individual Member States,
irrespective of the attitude of the other Member States, to depart from the common position and to restore
diplomatic relations, and return to normal political cooperation with Austria.

Mr Antonio Guterres, speaking in Paris, replied to a question from the press on the same subject as
follows: (cid:145)We adopted a common position and only these fourteen countries can change it one day if there
(Bulletin Quotidien Europe No 7680,
are conditions of change in Austria justifying such a measure(cid:146)
Monday-Tuesday. 20-21 March 2000). According to Mr Guterres, then, a change to the common position
requires a joint decision by all 14 countries to end the boycott which began on 31 January 2000.

On the other hand Mr Guterres has also commented on the plans whereby Mr Sch(cid:252)ssel, the Chancellor of
Austria, would speak to the EU Member States(cid:146) leaders at a dinner held in connection with the Lisbon
summit. According to him Portugal plans that Mr Sch(cid:252)ssel should be given the opportunity to speak, but
that afterwards there would be no further discussion of the subject and Mr Guterres would himself reply to
Mr Sch(cid:252)ssel on behalf of all the EU states. This too suggests that Mr Guterres considers himself able to act
as spokesman on behalf of all the 14 Member States, even though representatives of Portugal had earlier
given us to understand that the sanctions could be ended on a bilateral basis.

I would therefore respectfully ask the Council how these contradictory statements should be interpreted. Is
the 14 Member States(cid:146) decision to freeze high-level relations with Austria bilateral in nature, a matter to be
agreed between each state and Austria individually, or is it something else, a (cid:145)Council-minus-one(cid:146) decision?
Are the Member States not entitled to take an independent decision on the boycott? Does the EU
determine not only the Member States(cid:146) internal government decisions but also their foreign policy relations
with one another and their right to make their own diplomatic contacts?

Reply

(8 June 2000)

The declaration to which the Honourable Member refers was issued by the Prime Minister of Portugal on
behalf of the governments of 14 Member States. It is not for the Council either to take a view on this
declaration, or to elaborate on it. The Council has not therefore taken a position on any of the issues
raised in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question.