WRITTEN QUESTION E-3521/00 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission. New charges against Mr Marzouki in Tunisia.
Date: 2000-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Tunisia, association agreement (EU), charge, freedom of expression, human rights, penalty, rule of law

C 163 E/150

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

The undertaking demanded by Mitsubishi Germany serves to implement the ban preventing official
Mitsubishi dealers from supplying resellers, which is in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1475/95.
The wording of the undertaking referred to is therefore admissible under Regulation (EC) No 1475/95.

(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.
(2) See also the Commission notice (OJ C 17, 18.1.1995) regarding the (former) Regulation (EEC) No 123
of 12 December 1984 (OJ L 15, 18.1.1985) which was replaced in 1995 by Regulation (EC) No 1475/95
(see footnote 1). This notice still applies.

(2001/C 163 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3518/00

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Lloyds and the US financial markets

Is the current investigation of Lloyds impacting on the talks between the Commission and the US
Administration on the opening of American financial markets to EU companies?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

The trade talks between the Commission and the United States on opening the American insurance market
to Community companies under the trans-Atlantic economic partnership are independent of any investiga-
tion of Lloyds carried out by the Commission.

(2001/C 163 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3521/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: New charges against Mr Marzouki in Tunisia

On 23 October 2000, Mr Moncef Marzouki was ordered to appear before Mr Armor Ben Mansour, the
most senior examining judge, on charges of being a member of an unrecognised association (National
Council for Liberties in Tunisia), spreading false reports, discrediting the administration of public order,
discrediting the administration of justice, distributing leaflets likely to disturb public order, and inciting
citizens to rebel against the laws of the country. Mr Marzouki had just returned from Morocco, where he
had taken part in meetings of the Euro-mediterranean human rights network in preparation for the
EuroMed Civil Forum on the subject of the right of association, as well as in a congress of Arab defenders
of human rights. He was due to take part in a colloquium in Barcelona organised by the EuroMed Greens
network. These very serious charges could mean a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. Furthermore,
Mr Marzouki has again been refused the right to travel.

Does the Commission not consider that this legal case on the basis of the expression of opinions, the
fourth such case brought against Mr Marzouki, is one of many instances of the consolidation in Tunisia of
a police state founded on the systematic violation of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and
the right of association?

Does the Commission not consider that the time has come to initiate steps with regard to compliance with
the human rights clause as laid down in the association agreement between Tunisia and the EU?

If that is not the case, what measures does the Commission intend to take to persuade the Tunisian
authorities to put an end to the antidemocratic, police-state-oriented trend in the country and finally to
pursue a path of democratic reform and establishment of the rule of law?

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/151

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2000)

The Commission has noted the measures reportedly taken by the Tunisian authorities against Mr Marzouki
and has asked its delegate in Tunisia to monitor the affair carefully, in close coordination with the Member
State heads of mission in Tunis.

Broadly speaking the Commission continues to subscribe to the approach set out by the member
responsible for external relations at the plenary session on 14 June, which calls for the enhancement of
the EU(cid:146)s dialogue with the Tunisian authorities at all levels and the development of positive measures to
promote human rights, including freedom of expression and association.

(2001/C 163 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3524/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), Bob van den Bos (ELDR),
Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE)
and Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 November 2000)

Subject: Shortage of manpower for cross-border policing in and around the Dutch province of South

Limbourg

Is the Commission aware of the Dutch government(cid:146)s proposal to redistribute the manpower of the
1.
police forces over the 25 Dutch police regions, whereby the number of residents of
(cid:145)non-Western
immigrant origin(cid:146) and the degree of urbanisation will play a much greater role in determining how
police strength is allocated, with the result that the Limbourg South regional constabulary risks losing
370 officers?

2.
Is the Commission aware that the Dutch province of South Limbourg which includes the cities of
Maastricht and Heerlen is almost entirely surrounded by Belgian and German territory containing the cities
of Aachen, LiŁge and Hasselt, which has an impact on the way in which crime is organised, so that a case
can be made for not simply using domestic criteria for allocating police strength?

3.
Can the Commission confirm that the Limbourg-South constabulary is increasingly obliged to
apprehend or monitor cross-border drug transports and that, because of the many efforts to produce the
drug XTC in this frontier region, this means a relatively high workload with, in addition, many requests
from the German and Belgian police for help in fighting cross-border crime?

Can the Commission indicate whether, in its opinion, the Dutch initiative will result in future in a
4.
substantially lower police presence in this densely populated frontier region than if the Dutch province of
South Limbourg, the Belgian provinces of Limbourg and LiŁge and the neighbouring administrative
districts (Kreise) of the German Land of North Rhine-Westphalia were jointly assessed on the basis of a
single allocation system, whether Dutch, Belgian or German?

Does the Commission feel

5.
that consultations with the national, regional and local authorities
responsible for police matters would be a way of developing an objective standard for the requisite level
of policing in this and other frontier regions within the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2001)

The Dutch authorities have not officially informed the Commission on this proposal. As the
the distribution of the budget and the

1.
Honourable Members know the allocation of police forces,
indicators used to decide on the distribution are the responsibility of the Member States.