WRITTEN QUESTION E-1966/01 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission. European Commission representation in Vienna.
Date: 2001-07-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Commission Delegation, EU control, European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, budgetary control, fraud, labour law

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/21

(2002/C 115 E/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1939/01

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(12 July 2001)

Subject: Montagnard tribes in Vietnam

In February 2001 the Vietnamese Government deployed tanks, helicopters and over 13 regiments of
soldiers into the Central Highlands of Vietnam to quell demonstrations by Christian Montagnard hill tribes.
These indigenous hill tribes were protesting over the arrests of two of their church leaders as well as years
of religious persecution and confiscation of their ancestral lands. The International Commission of Jurists
(Australian section) distributed a report in February 2001 concluding that since 1975, Vietnam has
torture, arbitrary arrest,
committed gross human rights abuses against
sterilisation policies that violate women’s rights, forced relocations from and expropriations of their
traditional lands and the increased repression of religious freedom.

the Montagnards namely:

Reports indicate that the indigenous Montagnard population are now being terrorised by security forces.
The situation has deteriorated to such an extent that Montagnard refugees are fleeing to Cambodia, with
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Refugees International and the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees calling for urgent action to protection them, as Vietnam has offered ‘bounties’
for their capture and return. In June 2001, martial law and a media blackout in the region continues.
Vietnam has further cordoned off the region in an attempt to halt refugees.

Has the Council already investigated the reports of human rights violations facing the Montagnard
population inside Vietnam’s Central Highlands and the potential
for a humanitarian crisis if more
Montagnards are forced to flee as refugees? Has the Council made a provision of aid and trade to Vietnam
continent on the Vietnamese government complying with international human rights law?

Reply

(17 December 2001)

The Union regularly raises the human rights situation in its talks with the Vietnamese Government. The
Troika of EU missions in Hanoi expressed its concern at the situation in the mountains of central Vietnam
during a recent meeting on the subject of human rights. The 1995 Cooperation Agreement between the
European Community and Vietnam contains a human rights clause reflecting the importance which the
Union attaches to the promotion of human rights in the context of its relations with third countries and
human rights were discussed at the meeting of the EU/Vietnam Joint Committee on 6 November 2001.
The Council considers that dialogue is the best way to improve the human rights situation and, at present,
has no intention of imposing conditions either on its cooperation with Vietnam or on trade between
Europe and Vietnam.

(2002/C 115 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1966/01

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: European Commission representation in Vienna

By letter of 3 December 1999, the Austrian Private Employees’ Trade Union informed the Commission
that large numbers of employees of the Commission’s representation in Austria had for many years been
employed on a flat-rate fee basis thereby circumventing social-security and employment-law provisions.
The employees concerned had suffered personal disadvantages (withholding of leave and Christmas-break
payments, gaps in social insurance contributions, etc.)

C 115 E/22

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Can the Commission state how many employees have been so affected since 1995 or continue so to be,
indicating the periods during which each of them was so employed?

Can the Commission state when it was informed by the Vienna representation about these employment
conditions and what steps were taken to terminate this irregular situation?

Can the Commission further state what steps it has taken or intends to take to compensate those affected
for the financial disadvantages suffered?

The Commission was moreover informed by the above trade union organisation that those concerned had
stated that they had been required to sign fee invoices relating to duties they had never performed,
apparently for the purpose of concealing the employment of unregistered employees and to enable the
payments to be entered under apparently innocuous budget headings. It was said to have been current
practice in the event of visits from Brussels for unregistered employees to be told to vacate the premises
temporarily. That too was said to have been for the purpose of concealing the existence of the prevailing
conditions of employment.

Can the Commission state what steps it has taken to investigate these charges? Can the Commission state
in particular when the OLAF Fraud Unit was informed of those charges?

Will the Commission now be prepared to provide Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control with a
copy of the audit report drawn up by its own financial control unit subsequent to an inspection visit from
7 to 11 June 1999?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2001)

With regard to the allegations made in a letter, dated 3 December 1999, sent to the President by the
Austrian trade union Gewerkschaft der Privatangestellten (GPA),
the
Honourable Member to the answer already given to this letter on 10 May 2000, in which it recalled that
it knew of only one labour dispute between a third party and the Austrian Representation in the past.

the Commission would refer

The Commission would also recall that it communicated to Parliament the results of the ‘submarine’
inquiry carried out in all its departments in 1998/1999 and that it took all the necessary measures to put
an end to the practice of engaging outside staff on terms incompatible with the rules in force. The
appropriate instructions were also sent to the Austrian Representation.

On the matter of financial compensation, the Commission can only confirm that it will comply with all
relevant decisions given by the courts with regard to actions brought by third parties who feel that they
suffered damage in their labour relations with the Austrian Representation.

With regard to the suspected financial irregularities designed to conceal the employment of outside staff on
terms incompatible with the rules in force, the Commission can only say that the GPA provided no
evidence in support of its allegations. Any material in the possession of the Honourable Member should be
sent to the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF), which has stated that it received certain information on
18 June 2000, obtained further information from Financial Control on 30 July 2001 and it had launched
an inquiry on 7 August 2001.

The Commission also confirms that it is ready to apply Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control with
the 1999 audit report on the Vienna Office, prepared by its Financial Control in strict compliance with
Annex III to the framework agreement, should it receive a formal request for the document.