WRITTEN QUESTION E-3973/00 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission. Tunisia.
Date: 2000-12-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EIB loan, Tunisia, Union for the Mediterranean, association agreement (EU), human rights, rule of law

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/231

(2001/C 163 E/271)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3963/00

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Administration of the ERDF

Further to the Commission(cid:146)s reply to my Oral Question H-0584/00 (1), could the Commission inform me if
contracts co-financed by the structural funds for investment in, and advice to, SMEs and concluded by the
authorities of Member States should be open to public inspection? If not, why not?

(1) Written answer of 5.7.2000.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2001)

The Member States are responsible for the management of Structural Funds programmes. Contracts
concluded by the national administrations and part-financed by the European Regional Development
Fund are therefore subject to national labour law and national provisions on public access to government
documents.

Moreover, as the Commission has already had occasion to recall in reply to Oral Question H-0584/00 (1)
by the Honourable Member during the July 2000 session, the conclusion of service contracts with local
staff to provide services such as guidance to small and medium-sized enterprises comes under national
rules for public calls to tender, and the Member States are required to comply with the relevant
Community legislation.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (July 2000).

(2001/C 163 E/272)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3973/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Tunisia

Despite yet another announcement of reforms by President Ben Ali on 7 November 2000, there has been
no improvement in the situation with regard to the rule of law and fundamental freedoms in Tunisia.
A number of prisoners who have been on hunger strike for several weeks are in a critical condition.

The Tunisian Human Rights League has been placed under judicial administration by a judge sitting in
chambers to deal with urgent matters, after four disgruntled candidates brought an action against the
League seeking annulment of the results of its last congress. The congress had agreed to a policy of
autonomy from the Tunisian authorities. The summons was issued 24 hours after the statements by the
new President of the Tunisian Human Rights League, the lawyer Mohktar Trifi, concerning the orchestra-
tion by the Tunisian authorities of the legal action, which is designed to bring about the dissolution of the
association. The case is to be heard on 25 December 2000.

Does the lack of any response from the Commission to these new assaults on fundamental freedoms in
Tunisia mean that the Commission regards Article 2 of the Association Agreement between the EU and
Tunisia as an optional clause? Does not the Commission consider that the lack of any response on its part,
in conjunction with the EIB(cid:146)s granting of two loans to Tunisia, valued at € 70 million, within just a few
hours of the placing under judicial administration of the Tunisian Human Rights League, will be perceived
by the citizens of Tunisia as demonstrating that the Union is not interested in their fundamental rights and
as giving the Tunisian authorities carte blanche for their policy?

C 163 E/232

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2001)

The Honourable Members gave the Commission the opportunity to state its position on human rights in
Tunisia at the June 2000 part session and during a debate and the Commission outlined the reasons for
which it considers it appropriate at this stage to make use of the positive instruments in the Euro-
Mediterranean partnership, namely political dialogue and Community financing, to deal with criticisms of
human rights in Tunisia.

there have been a number of developments, both good and bad. Although the
Since the debate,
it can state that responsibility for prisons was
Commission does not claim that the list is exhaustive,
transferred to the Justice Ministry, certain political prisoners were pardoned, and the Congress of the
Tunisian Human Rights League passed off without incident. On the other hand, the Commission has been
informed of allegations concerning hunger strikes by political prisoners, the legality of elections to the new
governing board of the Tunisian Human Rights League has been contested, and action has been taken
against Moncef Marzouki and Najib Hosni. These events show the extent to which Tunisia(cid:146)s transition to
democracy and respect for human rights is still fragile.

As to what the European Union can do about the situation, the Commission remains convinced that the
EU should at this stage use the positive partnership instruments to support all those working to improve
human rights in Tunisia. The heads of mission from the Member States and the Commission in Tunis are
following the current court cases closely and stepping up contacts with the Tunisian authorities to
promote the EU(cid:146)s point of view, and thereby to intensify political dialogue. On the financial front, the
Commission is also stepping up its efforts to ensure that the two programmes announced in support of
journalists and non-governmental organisations are adopted quickly.

Lastly, it would be unfair not to mention the crucial role played by Parliament, which has contributed to
raising awareness and intensifying dialogue on these issues by means of parliamentary visits and public
debates; this should ultimately lead to a convergence of positions with our Tunisian partners.

(2001/C 163 E/273)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3981/00

by Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Import of dog and cat fur

An estimated 2 million dogs and cats are slaughtered and sold annually as part of the international fur
trade. How much (a) dog and (b) cat fur was imported into the Community in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999?

The United States has recently adopted the Dog and Cat Fur Act which prohibits the import, export,
manufacture and sale of dog and cat fur products. The US clearly believes that the Act is consistent with
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the rule of the World Trade Organisation. The Act(cid:146)s
preamble states that the ban is consistent with provisions of international agreements to which the US is
a party that expressly allow for measures designed to protect the health and welfare of animals.

Will the Commission now propose a ban on the import of dog and cat fur into the Community?