WRITTEN QUESTION P-1500/01 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Hunger strike by prisoners in Turkey.
Date: 2001-05-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Türkiye, accession criteria, accession to the European Union, hunger strike, penal institution, prisoner, the EU's international role, torture

C 81 E/32

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

progress has been made(cid:146) towards determining whether Morocco is prepared to offer or support some
devolution of authority for Western Sahara that is (cid:145)genuine, substantial and in keeping with international
law.(cid:146) On this basis the United Nation Security Council prolonged the mandate for MINURSO until
30 November 2001 in order to provide more time for the Personal Envoy of the Secretary General,
Mr James Baker, to consult further with the parties, either separately or at a meeting of the parties.

The Council fully supports UN efforts. The EU stands ready to offer its good services and to assist with any
peaceful solution. The Presidency is in contact with Mr Baker to this end.

With regard to the humanitarian consequences of the conflict, the EU is by far the largest donor of
humanitarian assistance to the Western Saharan refugees in the Tindouf camps. Financial support from
ECHO amounts to € 21 million in 1999/2001. In addition, € 3,7 million has been committed recently to
improve the food situation in the camps.

The Council welcomes the new efforts at the recent AMU Ministerial meeting to relaunch Maghreb co-
operation at various levels. It noted that Algeria and Morocco agreed to deal with the Western Sahara issue
in the framework of the United Nations and not as a bilateral issue.

(2002/C 81 E/040)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1500/01

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

Subject: Hunger strike by prisoners in Turkey

(21 May 2001)

Political prisoners held in Turkish jails have been on hunger strike for 180 days in protest at the Turkish
Government(cid:146)s plans to introduce new, type-F cells, which will totally isolate the political prisoners.

To date, 20 individuals have lost their lives, but in spite of this the Turkish Government has not changed
its position.

How many more lives must be lost before the Council decides to take effective measures against this
country which is seeking accession to the European Union?

I would also point out that my written question to the Council, No 4111/00 of 18 December 2000, with
exactly the same content as the above, remains unanswered to date, whereas according to Parliament(cid:146)s
current Rules of Procedure,
it should have been answered within six
weeks.

in particular Rule 44(6) thereof,

I have ascertained from inquiries within Parliament that despite repeated (three) reminders, the Council has
not seen fit to reply.

Such conduct is an affront to Parliament(cid:146)s work, flagrantly compromises the Council, creates serious
misgivings about its objectiveness, and prompts the thought that there is also a problem with democracy
elsewhere apart from in Turkey.

Does the Council think that Parliament has no role to play and, if so, would it not be more honest to say
so and thereby avoid pointless correspondence?

Reply

(21 November 2001)

Regarding the question of delay in issuing the answer of the Council to the questions raised by the
Honourable Members, the Council recalls the answer it has already given, in particular on the occasion of
questions E-1299/00, E-1300/00, P-1541/00.

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/33

The Council deeply regrets that the hunger strikes in Turkey are still leading to loss of life. The Council has
repeatedly pressed the Turkish authorities to take all appropriate measures to avoid further deaths and to
follow the recommendations of the Council of Europe(cid:146)s Committee for the Prevention of Torture through
changes in the law and practical measures.

The Council notes that the Turkish Government has already chosen to cooperate with the Council of
Europe(cid:146)s Committee for the Prevention of Torture, which has to date made four visits to Turkey in
connection with the hunger strikes. Changes to the law have come into force or will shortly do so,
including some aiming to reduce the isolation of prisoners. The Council urges the Turkish Government to
implement the new laws speedily and in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee for the
Prevention of Torture, since Turkey(cid:146)s compliance with the European Convention for the Prevention of
Torture constitutes a short-term priority of the Partnership Agreement.

The Council also recalls that the Accession Partnership for Turkey, adopted by the Council on 8 March
2001, includes prison reform as a medium-term priority.

The Council and the Member States will continue to raise the issue with the Turkish Government in the
framework of the enhanced political dialogue, the most recent occasion being the meeting of the EC-
Turkey Association Council which took place on 26 June 2001. In addition, the Council and Member
States use their contacts with Turkish partners, including the Turkish Ministers of the Interior and of
Justice, in Ankara and elsewhere to make their concerns about the hunger strikes clear.

The Council welcomes the recent visit to Ankara by members of the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary
Committee as an important contribution to the joint efforts by the European Parliament, the Council and
the Commission to prompt the Turkish Government to persevere with political reforms and to do
whatever is necessary to bring the hunger strikes to an end.

(2002/C 81 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1502/01

by Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Funding of the Galileo Satellite Navigation System Project

The Memorandum of Understanding signalling the provisional funding from private sector bodies of
EUR 200 million needs further explanation. Could the Council give examples of some of the industries
which have agreed to the funding? Could the Council also confirm the reports that unless a firm political
decision is taken on the definitive phase by June 2001 then this commitment by the private sector will
become obsolete?

In the interest of transparency may I call on the Council to make absolutely clear its intentions with regard
to the funding of this project and whether, in the absence of substantial private sector interest, it will fund
the project solely from the EU budget, including the EUR 220 million it will cost to maintain the project
per annum? Could the Council also provide an up-to-date breakdown of the contributions foreseen from
individual Member States?

Reply

(27 November 2001)

Contacts between the Commission and industrialists interested in the Galileo project have led to the
signing of a memorandum of understanding on the establishment of arrangements for participation by the
private sector in the development phase of the Galileo satellite radionavigation programme. Although not
a party to these contacts, the Council has noted the interest to which the Galileo project continues to give
rise among industrialists.