WRITTEN QUESTION E-2045/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Banning of the Party of Virtue in Turkey.
Date: 2001-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Türkiye, accession to the European Union, formation of a party, freedom of expression, political rights

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/31

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2001)

The two protection regimes of temporary protection and subsidiary protection are separate regimes which
relate to different situations and different categories of persons.

‘Temporary protection’, as also defined in the Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum
standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on
measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the
consequences thereo (1), means a procedure of exceptional character to provide, in the event of a mass
influx or imminent mass influx of displaced persons from third countries who are unable to return to their
country of origin, immediate and temporary protection to such persons, in particular if there is also a risk
that the asylum system will be unable to process this influx without adverse effects for its efficient
operation, in the interests of the persons concerned and other persons requesting protection.

‘Subsidiary protection’, (as also defined in the Proposal for a Council Directive (2) (COM(2001) …) laying
down minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons
in accordance with the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967
as refugees,
protocol, or as persons who otherwise need international protection), means a form of international
protection for persons not entitled to refugee status but who are otherwise in need of international
protection.

Temporary Protection is therefore reserved for situations of mass influx. It is an exceptional mechanism,
providing immediate protection for persons concerned. It is to be triggered by the Council of Ministers
(qualified majority) on the basis of a Commission proposal. It is valid for one year, with the possibility of
an automatic extension for a further two six-month periods. The Council can decide on a further extension
of up to one year. If the situation in the country of origin allow it, the Council can decide to end
Temporary Protection. Temporary Protection does not prejudge recognition of refugee status under the
Geneva Convention and the Proposal for a Council Directive establishes access to the normal asylum
procedure if persons concerned wish so.

The beneficiaries of temporary protection will be given residence permits, appropriate information, right to
work, accommodation, social assistance, health care, and education. At least close family members will be
able to reunite.

As opposed to temporary protection subsidiary protection is not reserved for specific situations, and can
be provided to persons who applied for international protection, do not meet the criteria for refugee status
as laid down in the 1951 Refugee Convention, but for whom it has nevertheless been determined that they
are in need of international protection.

(1) OJ L 212, 7.8.2001.
(2) Not available yet.

(2002/C 115 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2045/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Banning of the Party of Virtue in Turkey

(13 July 2001)

On 22 June the Turkish Constitutional Court decided to ban the activities of the Party of Virtue, confiscate
its assets and deprive some of its members of their civil rights for five years.

Is such a decision in an applicant country compatible with the acquis communautaire,

1.
Copenhagen criteria and the commitments deriving from the partnership?

the

2. What steps will the Commission take in order to send Turkey a clear message that its commitment to
fulfilling its binding obligations as an applicant country must not remain a dead letter?

C 115 E/32

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2001)

While noting that the decision of the Constitutional Court ordering the banning of the Fazilet party is in
accordance with the Turkish Constitution, the Commission is concerned about the implications of this
ruling for democratic pluralism and freedom of expression.

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the declaration issued in June 2001 by
the Presidency on behalf of the Union which stressed that ‘the decision of the Court highlights the need for
the Accession
Turkey to move ahead with political reforms in order to implement priorities of
Partnership.’

The Commission is currently monitoring,
the current
developments connected with the constitutional reform debated by the Turkish Parliament inter alia with
respect to the provisions on the banning of political parties. In this context, it pays particular attention to
the need to comply with European standards, in particular the ‘Guidelines on prohibition and dissolution
of political parties and analogous measures’ adopted in December 1999 by the Venice Commission of the
Council of Europe.

the Copenhagen political criteria,

in light of

(2002/C 115 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2083/01

by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Humanitarian aid to Macedonia and Kosovo

(13 July 2001)

Is it true that the humanitarian aid being provided by the Commission to the people of Macedonia is being
restricted to food aid? In view of the state of war in the country and the consequent numbers of refugees
is the Commission planning to draw up a comprehensive humanitarian-aid
and displaced persons,
programme?

It is reported that the ECHO office in Kosovo is closing down, despite the fact that the situation has
in Macedonia. How much
worsened following the arrival of
humanitarian aid is due to be supplied to Kosovo?

fleeing from the conflict

refugees

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2001)

Since the beginning of
the crisis in former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fYROM), European
Commission Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), through its partners, has responded to the humanitarian
needs of the victims (Internally displaced persons (IDPs) in fYROM and refugees in Kosovo) in three
manners:

F Mobilising the disaster preparedness stocks built, largely with ECHO funding, in the aftermath of the
Kosovo crisis. This was mainly done by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in
fYROM and the United Nations (UN) agencies in Kosovo.

F Enlarging the scope of ECHO’s programme in fYROM, to respond to the new needs. At the beginning
of the crisis, ECHO’s programme was targeting two categories: refugees (from the Kosovo crisis) and
most vulnerable local population. The programme has been increased and re-oriented to cater for the
needs of IDPs. ECHO is currently implementing projects in fYROM for a total amount of € 5,4 million.
Another € 600 000 have been committed and are in the process of being contracted out to ECHO
partners. The sectoral breakdown of it is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s
Secretariat.

F Responding to the crisis in Kosovo. In 2001, € 12,5 million have been committed for operations in
Kosovo: € 520 000 were contracted out in May 2001 to two non governmental organisation (NGO)
partners to provide support, in the form of non food items to refugees from fYROM. In addition, in
view of the increase in the number of refugees and the revision of the 2001 Consolidated Appeal of
the UN for South Eastern Europe, the Commission adopted on 31 July 2001 an emergency decision