WRITTEN QUESTION E-1784/01 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission. Sentence passed on Professor Saad Eddin Ibrahim.
Date: 2001-06-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Egypt, appeal, penalty, teacher

C 81 E/58

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

pursuant to this Article shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more
stringent protective measures compatible with the EC treaty. In particular, the Commission wishes to draw
the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to Council Directive 89/391/EC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction
of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (1), and in particular
the thirteenth recital, which states that (cid:145)the improvement of workers(cid:146) safety, hygiene and health at work is
an objective which should not be subordinated to purely economic considerations(cid:146).

These directives have to be transposed into the legal order of the Member States and it is for the Member
States themselves to see to the correct and effective enforcement of the national provisions transposing the
Community instruments. Hence, monitoring and surveillance of workplaces, and in particular building
sites, is a matter for the national authorities.

The latest statistics on accidents at work (2), dating from 1998, show an improvement at European level
both as regards the incidence of accidents at work requiring sick leave for over three days, namely 4 089
accidents per 100 000 workers in 1998 as compared with 4 229 in 1996 and 4 539 in 1994, and on the
incidence of fatal accidents at work, namely 3,5 fatalities per 100 000 workers in 1998 by comparison
with 3,6 in 1996 and 3,9 in 1994.

These statistical indicators show that the enforcement of Community legislation on health and safety of
workers at work has helped improve working conditions and reduce the accident rate throughout Europe.
Hence this legislation, when correctly enforced at national level, improves the health and safety of workers
at work.

For its part, the Commission is currently evaluating the situation and intends to propose measures to raise
awareness among the parties involved, so as to enhance the effectiveness of actions taken in this area up to
now, in the context of a future strategy in the field of protection of the health and safety of workers at
work.

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
(2) ESAW (cid:129) European statistics on accidents at work.

(2002/C 81 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1784/01

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Sentence passed on Professor Saad Eddin Ibrahim

On 21 May 2001, Professor Saad Eddin Ibrahim was sentenced to seven years in prison by an Egyptian
State Security Court which ruled that his efforts to ensure the parliamentary elections were monitored
were defamatory to the State. Professor Ibrahim had been arrested the previous July when the Ibn
Khaldoun Study Centre of which he was the director began holding courses on (cid:145)voter education(cid:146) and
training for monitors of last Autumn(cid:146)s parliamentary elections.

The public prosecutor challenged the use to which the Ibn Khaldoun Study Centre had put Commission
funds of USD 250 000, with which it had produced a documentary film on electoral fraud in the last
election and constructed imitation voting booths to simulate voting during the voter education courses
organised in the run-up to the elections. 27 members of staff of the Ibn Khaldoun Study Centre were
convicted in addition to Professor Saad Eddin Ibrahim, thus effectively closing down one of the most
prestigious institutes of political science in the Arab world.

Was the Commission aware that Professor Saad Eddin Ibrahim had been imprisoned? What are the
Commission(cid:146)s views on the conviction by a third country of persons engaged in activities funded by the
Commission? What steps does the Commission intend to take to defend Professor Ibrahim and his staff
and protect them against the risks incurred by engaging in activities encouraged and funded by the
Commission?

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/59

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(8 August 2001)

The Presidency and the Commission have closely followed developments with respect to the charges
levelled against Dr Ibrahim and his associates. When he and some of his colleagues were initially arrested
and held without charge, appropriate channels were used to make clear the Union(cid:146)s concern at their
detention without charge and at
the highly charged and speculative press campaign which risked
compromising any chance of a fair trial.

When Dr Ibrahim and his colleagues were released and subsequently charged, inter alia, with misusing
Union funds allocated to an (cid:145)education for democracy(cid:146) project managed by Dr Ibrahim, the EC made a
clear and public statement to the effect that the project concerned had been subject to normal monitoring
and audit procedures; and these had given no cause for concern. In addition the Commission Delegation in
Cairo made clear that the use of Union funds for such projects was entirely proper, and was covered by
the Union-Egypt Framework Agreement on the implementation of Financial and Technical Co-operation.

During the present trial, the Union registered its concern that the defence should have proper access to
documentary evidence and that the proceedings should follow due legal process. Union observers have
attended the trial throughout and they, together with many others, were disturbed at the manner, the
timing, and the severity of the sentences on all the accused, and especially on Dr Ibrahim. The Commission
made a strong oral statement (23 May 2001) and the Union presidency issued a declaration (25 May
2001) to the effect that the Union was (cid:145)deeply disturbed by the harsh sentences handed down by the
Egyptian Supreme State Security Court(cid:146) (a text is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s
Secretariat).

The Court was obliged to explain the reasons for its verdict within 30 days of sentence and has just done
so. The Commission is presently studying them. Those convicted have limited rights of appeal on
procedural grounds and are considering their position. It goes without saying that the next steps in this
affair will be closely studied in the hope and expectation that the situation will be resolved in the best
traditions of the Egyptian legal system.

(2002/C 81 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1789/01

by Jaime Valdivielso de CuØ (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Consumer protection

The Commission has recently concluded a number of studies into the level of charges levied on small-scale
bank transfers between various countries within the European Union.

The findings speak for themselves: such transactions attract charges averaging 17 % and are 10 times more
expensive than domestic transfers.

What action is to be taken (cid:129) and on what timescale (cid:129) in order to remedy this state of affairs?

When are charges for transfers between the EMU countries to be brought into line with those for domestic
transfers?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2001)

The Honourable Member rightly points out that former, recent and ongoing studies show no substantial
decrease of banking charges for retail cross-border credit transfers.