WRITTEN QUESTION E-2502/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Continued violation of human rights in Turkey and Kurdistan.
Date: 2001-09-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Kurdistan question, Türkiye, government violence, human rights, the EU's international role, torture

C 147 E/22

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

sector. Financial aid from the European Regional Development Fund for these measures amounts to
€ 1,140,140,
i.e. 26 % of their total public costs. However, the Structural Funds have not supported
construction work on airport facilities at Weeze-Laarbruch, including runways, but measures concerning
analyses on conversion of the airport and the construction of a business park.

2.

The Commission is aware of the location of the airport and possible noise nuisances.

North Rhein-Westphalia’s Ministry for Economic Affairs, Small Businesses, Energy and Transport,
indicates that Dutch environmental

3.
which is responsible for managing the Konver II programme,
authorities have been involved in the consideration of measures financed through the Structural Funds.

4.
As stated by the Commission in its decision of 22 July 1998 (1) on access to Karlstad airport, Member
states may apply certain restrictive operational measures, such as night curfews, provided that such
measures respect the provisions and procedures of articles 8 and 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2408/92 (2)
as well as comply with the principles of necessity and proportionality.

5.
For projects with likely significant effects on the environment of another Member State, article 7 of
Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (3) on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment
(EIA) provides for information and consultation
arrangements between the Member States concerned regarding inter alia, measures envisaged to reduce
or eliminate such effects. Where the EIA Directive applies, noise nuisance including its transboundary
dimension, would need to be studied, amongst other environmental
in the context of the
environmental report and taken into account in the development consent procedure.

impacts,

The Commission is of the opinion that the EIA Directive gives sufficient assurances for proper

6.
involvement of all the parties concerned.

(1) OJ L 233, 20.8.1998, p. 25-31.
(2) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.
(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(2002/C 147 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2502/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(14 September 2001)

Subject: Continued violation of human rights in Turkey and Kurdistan

In reply to my question E-1563/00 (1), the Council informed me that it remained ‘concerned about the
human rights situation in Turkey, including the practice of torture’. There were several serious reports
about torture and ill-treatment in Turkey, not only from Kurdistan but also from other regions.

According to the Council, the Turkish Government openly recognised the existence of torture. The Turkish
authorities were taking a number of measures in order to put an end to the practice of torture in Turkey,
and had announced plans for further measures. The Council also stated that it would continue to monitor
the situation and encourage Turkey to take all necessary measures to ensure that human rights were fully
respected.

Almost eleven months following this statement by the Council, however, a drastic deterioration is being
seen in the human rights situation in Turkey. On Thursday, 23 August 2001,
the Human Rights
Association of Turkey (IHD), one of the most highly respected human rights organisations, reported a
sharp rise in the number of cases of torture (source: Reuters).

In the first six months of this year, no fewer than 435 people made complaints of torture, compared with
263 during the same period of last year and 334 in 1999. In addition, the public prosecutors indicted
1 519 people for opinions expressed in speeches or in writing. There is, consequently, clearly no question
of an improvement in the human rights situation in Turkey.

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/23

Does the Council endorse the findings of the Human Rights Association of Turkey? (a) If so, will the
Council be seeking clarification of these findings in the political dialogue meetings with the Turkish
authorities? (b) If not, does the Council reject the findings of the Human Rights Association of Turkey, and
does it take the view that the human rights situation in Turkey has improved?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 55.

Reply

(1 March 2002)

The Council continues to follow the human rights situation in Turkey very closely. It takes seriously recent
reports of Turkish human rights associations indicating an increase in the number of acts of torture.

The whole human rights issue in Turkey in all its aspects, including the continuing use of torture (despite
the measures taken by the Turkish authorities to put an end to these practices), was recently raised during
the visit by the European troika of political directors to Ankara on 1 October 2001 in the course of a
frank political dialogue.

In this context the Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the vote by the Turkish Parliament on
3 October on a series of constitutional amendments bringing Turkey closer to international human rights
standards.

(2002/C 147 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2514/01

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 September 2001)

Subject: Illegal immigration

Illegal immigration is a widespread phenomenon across all the EU’s borders. The problem is most acute in
certain areas which are particularly severely affected from a social, economic and humanitarian point of
view.

Does the Commission regard it as normal and acceptable that there should be such a huge flood of human
beings from North and sub-Saharan Africa who, in small boats and with an incalculable loss of human life,
have been and will be crossing the Strait of Gibraltar with a view to seeking a decent future for themselves
and their families?

Does the Commission believe that Spain and Morocco will be able to solve this problem (which now
involves hitherto unheard of numbers of refugees) just at a time when those two countries have become
more estranged than ever on account of fisheries disputes, drugs trafficking and issues relating to illegal
immigration itself?

Does the Commission not think that the adjective ‘unsustainable’ (which the Spanish Government has used
to describe the situation) only confirms that government’s inability to tackle the problem and solve it
properly?

The social, economic and humanitarian burden of what is after all a Community problem now falls
squarely on the shoulders of the Andalusian Regional Government, even though the latter has neither
funding nor transferred political powers with which to deal with it.

Does the Commission think it logical that NGOs which were set up to assist the Third World should be
setting up camp on the coasts of Andalusia in order to be able to provide immigrants with the care which
they are not receiving from the relevant authorities?

Does the Commission not believe that it is now time for the Community to play a direct role in the matter
(which clearly has a European dimension) in view of the obvious inability of Spain and Morocco to do
anything about it, and to draw up a common policy which will enable a proper solution to the situation to
be found without further delay?