WRITTEN QUESTION E-3112/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Impact of proposed anti-terrorism Framework proposals and European arrest warrant contrary to existing civil rights.
Date: 2001-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European arrest warrant, extradition, human rights, judicial proceedings, protection of freedoms, terrorism

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/99

The Commission expressed concerns that such practices were illegal in its supplementary Statement
5.
of Objections. The Commission is currently examining Microsoft’s reply to this Statement of Objections,
and will on the basis of this and submissions from third parties assess whether these objections are
confirmed. Until this assessment is made, the Commission does not believe that it is appropriate to discuss
potential remedies.

6.
The Commission expressed concerns that such practices were illegal in its supplementary Statement
of Objections. The Commission is currently examining Microsoft’s reply to this Statement of Objections,
and will on the basis of this and submissions from third parties assess whether these objections are
confirmed.

7.
As a result of an exhaustive analysis of the market and Sun’s complaint, the Commission issued a
Statement of Objections in August 2000, in which concerns were raised that Microsoft was withholding
Windows APIs from suppliers of competing server operating systems. More concerns of this nature were
raised in the Commission’s supplementary Statement of Objections which was issued in August 2001. The
Commission is currently examining Microsoft’s response to these objections, and will on the basis of this,
as well as submissions from Sun and other third parties assess whether the objections are confirmed.

In the Commission’s supplementary Statement of Objections, concerns were raised that the bundling
8.
of Media Player into Windows could adversely affect the ability of companies with stand-alone media
player products to compete with Microsoft on a level playing field. The Commission is currently
examining Microsoft’s response to these objections, and will on the basis of this and submissions from
third parties assess whether these objections are confirmed.

(2002/C 147 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3112/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Impact of proposed anti-terrorism Framework proposals and European arrest warrant contrary to

existing civil rights

its Framework for combating terrorism (12103/01 Droipen 81), drawn up on
In the matter of
19 September, and the growing fear it has elicited among European citizens of unwarranted detention on
the basis of a European arrest warrant for actions that have never been and never should amount to an
offence by any natural standard of justice, and that consequently must not be allowed to compromise the
integrity of any law-abiding citizen.

Can the Commission answer the following questions concerning the intended or unintended consequences
of the possible implementation of those proposals:

1. What scope is being given to the courts to deprive individuals of rights hitherto regarded as self-
evident, in particular by detaining suspects on suspicion without charges for longer than currently
permitted, and/or denying them access to defence lawyers?

2. At what stage in proceedings will a suspect become eligible for legal aid, and will legal aid continue to
be provided across borders for the duration of the whole proceedings at no extra cost to the suspect?

3. Will it become an offence to hold certain political or other views, such as advocating changes in state
institutions or in decisions having an impact on the economy, or giving public expression to such
views and seeking to win support for them?

4. What scope will remain for extra-parliamentary action, in particular the right to hold demonstrations
and meetings in public places, take strike action and mount employee workplace occupations as a
means of bringing pressure to bear?

5. Will it be possible for what are now lawful organisations to be prosecuted or banned as a consequence

of the behaviour of a few of their members?

6.

In what circumstances might actions that are permitted in one Member State ; such as induced
abortion, voluntary euthanasia and soft-drug consumption ; become liable to prosecution on the
grounds that they constitute offences in another Member State?

C 147 E/100

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

The Member States have now reached an agreement on the European arrest warrant that will replace the
current extradition system by an entirely judicial procedure for surrender. It will not have any negative
consequences on fundamental rights and freedoms. Pre-trial detention will be shorter than under the
current extradition scheme, as a time limit for surrender will be introduced. Legal aid will continue to be
provided during the entire procedure. Moreover, the Member States have chosen to introduce a positive
list of offences that will only include serious offences, which are known by all Member States. These
offences will not require double criminality. The threshold for the offences in the positive list will be at
least three years. These offences will be defined by the law of the issuing (requesting) State. The general
threshold for other offences ; for which double criminality will be required ; will be one year for the
pre-trial situation and four months for the post-trial situations. Prosecution for such offences as abortion,
voluntary euthanasia and soft-drug consumption will continue to be based on national law. This type of
offences are not included in the positive list (questions 1-2 and 6).

As regards the proposal on combating terrorism, the following can be said:

It will not become an offence to hold certain political or other views, as this does not fall under the
scope for the terrorist offences listed in Article 1 of the Framework Decision on combating terrorism
(question 3). This Article establishes the definition of terrorist offence as follows:

Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that terrorist offences include the
following list of intentional acts which, given their nature or their context, may seriously damage a
country or an international organisation, as defined as offences under national law, where committed
with the aim of:

(i)

seriously intimidating a population, or

(ii) unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from

performing any act, or

(iii) seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social

structures of a country or an international organisation.

This wording is close to the text of the UN Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
(1999), which is likely to inspire the forthcoming comprehensive convention on international terrorism.

The scope for extra-parliamentary action remains the same as now (question 4). Under no circumstances a
peaceful demonstration could fall under this Article. Further clarifications have been introduced into the
text in order to meet the concerns that political action and free speech could be jeopardised, for example
in the context of trade union activities or anti-globalisation movements. It is made clear that such conduct
could not come within the scope of the Framework Decision, and Recital (10) reads:

This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they emerge from the
constitutional traditions common to the Member States as principles of Community law. The Union
observes the principles recognised by Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union and reflected in
the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, notably Chapter VI thereof. Nothing in this
Framework Decision may be interpreted as being intended to reduce or restrict fundamental rights or
freedoms such as the right to strike, freedom of assembly, of association or of expression, including
the right of everyone to form and to join trade unions with others for the protection of his or her
interests and the related right to demonstrate.

A Council Declaration has also been brought to the text as follows:

The Council states that the Framework Decision on the fight against terrorism covers acts which are
considered by all Member States of the European Union as serious infringements of their criminal laws
committed by individuals whose objectives constitute a threat to their democratic societies respecting
the rule of law and the civilisation upon which these societies are founded. It has to be understood in

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/101

this sense and cannot be construed so as to argue that the conduct of those who have acted in the
interest of preserving or restoring these democratic values, as was notably the case in some Member
States during the Second World War, could now be considered as ‘terrorist’ acts. Nor can it be
construed so as to incriminate on terrorist grounds persons exercising their fundamental right to
manifest their opinions, even if in the course of the exercise of such right they commit offences.

It is also clear that lawful organisations are not affected by this instrument, even if one of its members
commits a terrorist offence (question 5).

The Honourable Member is also invited to consult the text agreed at the JHA Council on 6-7 December
2001 from which it will be seen that many of his concerns have been addressed.

(2002/C 147 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3116/01

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Environmental situation in Marianna di Pietrabianca (Province of Catanzaro), Italy

There is good reason to believe that, in Marianna di Pietrabanca (Catanzaro, Italy), hundreds of railway
less than thirty metres from the water’s edge. These sleepers have
sleepers are buried underground,
apparently been transported there by the Mollo company in relation to building work for a bathing
establishment. The Ministry of the Environment classifies such sleepers as ‘special waste’. Over the years,
bathing establishments with fixed booths made of concrete and other concrete constructions have been
built on the Santa Maria cliffs,
in blatant contravention of the ministerial decree of 26 March 1970
(designating the Bonifati coastline as an area of special public interest). In the winter of 2000 a large
portion of these cliffs collapsed into the sea. Along the Bonifati coastline, many of the paths giving access
to the sea are permanently closed to walkers, in contravention of the relevant state laws.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the area is rehabilitated and that any
prohibitions which are considered illegal are removed?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2002)

The Commission’s powers are limited to those conferred on it by the EC Treaty,
it is
responsible for ensuring that Community law is properly applied within all Member States. On the basis of
Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty, ‘in order to ensure the proper functioning and development
of the common market, the Commission shall ensure that the provisions of this Treaty and the measures
taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied’.

in particular,

On the basis of Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, ‘if the Commission considers that a Member
State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter
after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations. If the State concerned does not
comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter
before the Court of Justice.’

On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, due to a lack of grounds of complaint
on the application of Community law, no clear breach of Community directives can be identified at
present. Should the Honourable Member provide detailed information enabling the Commission to assess
the issues in relation to applicable Community environmental law, the Commission would be able to start
an investigation on the case.