WRITTEN QUESTION E-4154/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Protecting political prisoners in Turkey against hatred, arbitrary treatment and circumstances which may result in death.
Date: 2001-01-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Türkiye, accession negotiations, human rights, hunger strike, law relating to prisons, political prisoner, prisoner

C 261 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

Is the Commission concerned that the exclusion of enriched cages from the Directive could represent a
(cid:145)loophole(cid:146) as farmers might adapt existing battery cages to render them legal after the ban on battery cages
enters into force in 2012?

(1) OJ L 203, 3.8.1999, p. 53.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2001)

The Commission is aware that some animal welfare organisations in the Community are concerned that
the ban on cages under the Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999,
laying down minimum
standards for the protection of laying hens, is limited to unenriched cage systems.

The Directive reflects the conclusions of a specific opinion of the Scientific Veterinary Committee. This
opinion, adopted in 1996, highlights that the welfare conditions of hens kept in battery cages without any
enrichment are inadequate. The enrichment of the cages provided in 1999 is supposed to compensate for
certain disadvantages for the welfare of the hens.

According to Article 10 of the Directive the Commission shall submit a report to the Council not later
than 1 January 2005, drawn up on the basis of an opinion from the Scientific Veterinary Committee, on
the various systems of rearing laying hens. One of the objectives of this report will be to evaluate enriched
cages, which are still under development and which are not yet widely used in commercial farms.

The Directive does not exclude the transformation of existing battery cages into enriched cages. As long as
the minimum standards for the enriched cages laid down in the Directive are fulfilled this could not be
regarded as a circumvention of the ban.

(2001/C 261 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4154/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Protecting political prisoners in Turkey against hatred, arbitrary treatment and circumstances

which may result in death

1.
Is the Council aware of the hunger strike by more than 800 prisoners in Turkey which has been
going on since 20 October, and of the support for this hunger strike in the form of solidarity campaigns
and hunger strikes in the Member States of the European Union?

2.
Does the Council agree that at first sight it seems rather strange that within the countries of the
European Union prisoners mostly wish their privacy to be respected and not more than one person to be
accommodated in each cell, whereas prisoners in Turkey are protesting against a (cid:145)modernisation(cid:146) of the
prison system which will result in their being moved from dormitory-style wards to individual cells in
newly built or planned F-type prisons?

3.
Does the Council appreciate that the position of people who are imprisoned for (cid:145)political offences(cid:146)
which would not generally have resulted in a prison sentence in Member States of the European Union
and who therefore see themselves as political prisoners is different from that of individual convicts who
have committed crimes, partly because they fear that solitary confinement will expose them to the risk of
uncontrollable intimidation and mistreatment, while medical treatment may not be available to them,
because they are hated by their guards and by the authorities concerned?

4. What will the Council do through the contacts with Turkey, an applicant for membership of the
European Union, in order to reduce to a minimum the number of political prisoners in that country and
(cid:129) in the case of those who are nonetheless incarcerated (cid:129) to secure a special status for them, which is
subject to international monitoring, such as to protect them in so far as possible against hatred, arbitrary
treatment and circumstances which may lead to their death?

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/27

5. What scope is there for diplomats from European Union Member States to visit prisoners and
members of their families in the near future and how might it be possible to offer to mediate, thereby
helping to avoid faits accomplis which will result in further escalation of the conflict?

Reply

(31 May 2001)

With regard to paragraphs 1 to 3, the Council refers the Honourable Member to its answer to question
E-4111/00 concerning the hunger strike by Turkish prisoners.

With regard to paragraph 4, the Council hopes that the efforts to strengthen the legal and constitutional
guarantees for freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, which are included in the short-
lead to a considerable reduction in the number of
term priorities of the Accession Partnership, will
political prisoners. Turkey is also expected to (cid:145)address in this context the situation of those persons in
prison sentenced for expressing non-violent opinions(cid:146).

With regard to paragraph 5, to the knowledge of the Council, diplomats from Member States have in the
past been able to visit prisoners only in certain specific cases.

The Council has not so far discussed the possibility mentioned by the Honourable Member in his question.

(2001/C 261 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0003/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Spanish Draft Plan relating to management of water resources

In July 2000, the Spanish Government put forward a proposal for a new water-resources management
plan aimed at introducing a new fully-integrated legal framework for water management. The plan is due
to come before the Spanish Parliament early next year. The issue of interregional water transfers has been,
and is likely to remain, the bill(cid:146)s most controversial point, but the Spanish Government is speeding up
multiple projects for large-scale reservoirs and water-transfer systems that will have an extremely serious
social and environmental impact through failure to respect the precautionary principle, with particular
regard to sustainable water management. The Arag(cid:243)n Regional Government has already given notice that
it will oppose any attempt to transfer water from its own basins.

Is the European Commission aware of the Spanish Government(cid:146)s plans to build a large number of new
dams and water-transfer systems as part of its new water-resources management plan? Can the Commi-
ssion confirm that the Spanish Government has already received EU funding to finance these plans and
from which European programme or fund? Will the Spanish Community Support Framework, financed by
the Structural Funds 2000-2006, and the Cohesion Fund allocate funding to support these water-transfer
operations? If so, how can these operations be justified under the requested ex-ante environmental
appraisal for the Structural Funds and the strategic assessment for the Cohesion Fund? Are the Spanish
plans in line with the provisions on water transfers set out in the new Water Framework Directive (2000/
60/EC)? Is the Spanish draft plan in line with the article of the new Water Framework Directive relating to
water pricing, and the common guidelines for the use of water charging (1) current being drawn up?

(1) Pricing policies for enhancing the sustainability of water resources (cid:129) COM(2000) 477.