WRITTEN QUESTION E-3348/01 by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission. Copyright in the information society.
Date: 2001-12-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: copyright, information society, national implementing measure, reprography

C 172 E/42

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2002)

As to the specific case of Safiya Hussaini Tungar Dudu, an appeal has been lodged by the defendant, and
in the meantime the sentence has been suspended by the Islamic Appeal Court of Sokoto. According to
local press reports the Attorney General of the Federation has already indicated that he will not accept
confirmation or application of this sentence.

The Union is strongly opposed to the use of the death penalty. In June 1998, the Union decided, as an
integral part of its human rights policy, to strengthen its international activities in opposition to the death
penalty.

The Commission waits the outcome of the appeal.

Moreover, the Union will continue to encourage the Government of Nigeria to abolish the death penalty,
to strengthen respect of human rights, and to raise people’s awareness of their legal rights. A project is
currently under implementation to strengthen civil society in Northern Nigeria, and promotion of human
rights and civil society are themes identified in the Country Strategy Support.

The Commission acts in several ways to end the practice in certain Islamic countries of public and
particularly cruel executions.

The Union Guidelines on policy towards third countries on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, which were adopted by the General Affairs Council on 9 April 2001, underline
that corporal punishment is included within the scope of the references to ‘ill-treatment’. The principles set
out in the Guidelines with respect to Union actions (for example, with respect to political dialogue and
general and individual démarches) therefore apply to punishments such as the floggings referred to in the
question.

As concerns Union action within the United Nations it should be recalled that the Union at the 57th
Session of the Commission on Human Rights referred to the situation in Nigeria. In the Union statement
concerning the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in any part of the world, the Union
expressed concern regarding ‘the sentences of severe corporal punishment passed down under the Sharia
penal code introduced by certain states in northern Nigeria’.

Within the framework of Chapter B7-7 of the Community budget (the European Initiative for Democracy
and Human Rights) funds to combat torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in Nigeria
and other third countries will continue to be available.

(2002/C 172 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3348/01

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 December 2001)

Subject: Copyright in the information society

The directive on copyright in the information society is in the process of being introduced. In this
connection, it is being argued that copyright protection levies should be introduced on products, such as
PCs and video players, that can be used to store music, for example. Is the Commission aware of such
plans? If so, how many Member States are considering them, and are they compatible with the objectives
of the e-Europe action plan?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2002)

Directive 2001/29/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001, on copyright and related
implemented by Member States by
rights
22 December 2002. The Directive allows Member States to provide an exception to the right of

information society (1)

required to be

in the

is

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/43

reproduction for private use, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation. The Directive
gives Member States certain flexibility in determining the form, detailed arrangements and level of fair
compensation. Account should also be taken of
the particular circumstances of each case. Fair
compensation is a new concept introduced by the Directive. It is not identical with equitable remuneration
schemes (the ‘levies’). The Directive does not explicitly address such levy schemes. However, all Member
States, with the exception of Ireland, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom currently have already in place
remuneration schemes for private copying applying to blank recording media, equipment or both. Many of
them are considering whether to rationalise or extend theses schemes in relation to the media or
equipment to which they currently apply.

The Directive recognises that digital private copying (as opposed to analogue)
is likely to be more
widespread and have a greater economic impact. When applying the private copying exception, the
Directive requires Member States to take account of the application or non-application of technical
measures. The Directive introduces a comprehensive legal framework for the protection of technological
measures which provides an incentive towards the use of such measures.

In the run up to implementation, the Commission has organised a series of informal meetings with the
purpose of assisting Member States in transposing the Directive consistent with its aims. Thereafter, the
Commission will examine the impact of the Directive on the functioning of the internal market on a
variety of issues including private copying and the use of technological measures both in the context of the
Contact Committee established by the Directive and also in accordance with the review procedure laid
down by the Directive.

(1) OJ L 167, 22.6.2001.

(2002/C 172 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3359/01

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL)
and Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Subject: European arrest warrant and the extradition of suspected terrorists to the USA

We have gathered from press reports that the United States of America and the European Union are
pursuing an agreement that would pave the way for the extradition of suspected terrorists to the USA
under the new European arrest warrant by ensuring that the death penalty would not be applied in certain
cases. We have also taken note of the global assurances given by the US Ambassador to the EU,
Mr Rockwell Schnabel, that the death penalty would not be applied to suspected terrorists extradited from
Europe; however, with regard to that matter, the US Ambassador emphasised the need for some countries
‘to change things, including their constitutions’ and added that ‘there is agreement to pursue that’.

Bearing in mind that opposition to the death penalty is one of the fundamental principles of the EU,
enshrined as it is in the constitutions and in the specific laws of many of its Member States, and that the
new powers conferred on the President of
the United States since 11 September 2001 (including
entrusting military courts with jurisdiction, in summary proceedings, over foreigners suspected of terrorist
activities) would nullify any assurances given by State or Federal authorities of the USA, would the
Commission clarify the juridical nature and the scope of the negotiations with the USA going on in such a
context and restate its determination not to enter any agreement which would compromise,
limit or
modify EU opposition to the death penalty under any circumstances, particularly those involving
emergency extradition procedures?