WRITTEN QUESTION P-3523/01 by Emma Bonino (NI) to the Council. Situation in Zimbabwe.
Date: 2001-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Zimbabwe, democracy, election monitoring, freedom of the press, human rights, presidential election, rule of law, sanction (EU), violence

C 160 E/132

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2002)

In the Commission’s opinion, the rights of persons belonging to minorities are part of the principles
common to the Member States, as spelt out in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). These
principles, which were enshrined in various international conventions (1), have been solemnly reaffirmed by
the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 21(1) prohibits any discrimination based
inter alia on ethnic origin,
language, religion or membership of a national minority, while Article 22
requires that cultural, religious and linguistic diversity be respected. As the explanations relating to the
Charter state, these two provisions are based respectively on Article 13 of the EC Treaty and Article 14 of
the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and on
Article 151 of the EC Treaty.

Respect by the Member States of these principles is ensured by the infringement proceedings provided for
in Article 226 of the EC Treaty and by the political procedure provided for in Article 7 of the TEU. Under
Article 226, the Commission can bring the matter before the Court of Justice if the act objected to falls
within the scope of Community law. Under Article 7 of the TEU, the Commission or one third of the
Member States can refer the matter to the Council, meeting in the composition of the Heads of State or
Government, in the event of a serious and persistent breach of the principles mentioned in Article 6.

The Commission does not possess any information suggesting that Community law has been wrongly
applied or that a serious and persistent breach within the meaning of Article 7 exists that is such as to
warrant the implementation of the political procedure provided for by that Article.

It is not impossible that there are still certain problems relating to the treatment of minorities. The findings
of the report by Parliament’s Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs on
the respect of fundamental rights in the Union are very relevant (2), as is the work carried out by the
Council of Europe (3). However, it should be emphasised that in recent years Greece has made progress in
this area, and the Commission can only encourage this trend.

The Commission is not aware that any historical monuments have been destroyed or any inscriptions
relating to minorities obliterated in Greece. Since 1998 the Greek Nationality Code has allowed citizenship
to be revoked only in the case of persons living abroad where these persons have committed acts contrary
to Greece’s interests and to the benefit of a foreign State (4). This provision has been very rarely invoked.

Lastly, it should be recalled that, in general, any person who feels that his fundamental rights have been
infringed can bring the matter before the national courts and, after exhausting the remedies there, can refer
the matter to the European Court of Human Rights in the case of a breach of the European Convention on
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

(1) See, for example, the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 27 of which protects the
cultural life and language of persons belonging to minorities and which was ratified by all the Member States.
(2) Report on the situation as regards fundamental rights in the European Union (2000), Committee on Citizens’

Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, Rapporteur: Thierry Cornillet.

(3) European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, Second Report on Greece, adopted on 10 December 1999

and published on 27 June 2000, doc. No CRI (2000) 32.

(4) Article 20 of the 1955 Nationality Code.

(2002/C 160 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3523/01

by Emma Bonino (NI) to the Council

(13 December 2001)

Subject: Situation in Zimbabwe

The situation in Zimbabwe is continuing to deteriorate, with an escalation being seen in the level of
intimidation and threats directed at opposition parties, human rights organisations,
the media and
diplomatic missions of countries and international organisations accredited to Harare. Those responsible
for systematically instigating the violence are the President of the Republic, Mr Mugabe, and members of
his government. During a visit by a delegation of 20 representatives of the European Union to Harare on

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/133

23 November, President Mugabe overstepped the bounds imposed by diplomatic courtesy and simple good
manners by leaving the meeting room after having very bluntly refused to reply to all questions
concerning the United Nations report on the exploitation of natural resources in the DRC and dismissed
the proposal to send observers to the forthcoming presidential elections.

What measures does the European Union, and in particular the Council, intend to take to step up the
political dialogue provided for under Article 96 of the Cotonou agreement with a view to defending, in a
concrete way, democratic principles and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms in Zimbabwe,
as well as safeguarding the prestige and dignity of European institutions?

Does the Council not consider that the time is ripe to consider, jointly with the United States and other
countries, urgently imposing targeted sanctions A directed personally at the President, members of his
government and their families A such as the withdrawal of visas and residence permits and any other
measures which would not have a negative impact on the civilian population?

Reply

(25/26 March 2002)

The European Union is deeply concerned about the poor human rights situation in Zimbabwe,
in
particular since early 2000 and about the prevailing climate of violence and intimidation and the apparent
impunity with which crimes have been and continue being perpetrated. The harassment of the opposition,
especially in the run up to the presidential elections scheduled for 9 and 10 March 2002, the intimidation
of the judiciary, limitations to the right to freedom of expression for all, including the press and illegal
farm occupations are also a matter of deep concern.

In the light of the provisions on respect of human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law
contained in Art. 9 (2) of the Cotonou Agreement, and pursuant to Art. 96 of that Agreement, the entering
into consultations with Zimbabwe and the ACP party was decided on 29 October 2001.

The consultations took place on 11 January 2002 with the participation of a number of SADC countries
which play an important role in the process.

In concluding the meeting, the EU outlined the areas in which the Zimbabwean authorities expressed a
willingness to go some way towards meeting the EU concerns with concrete actions. The EU announced,
however, that it was not satisfied and asked the Zimbabwean Government to send a letter to the President
of the Council of the EU, within a week, detailing its actions on all points covered by the discussion. The
EU insisted in particular on an invitation and accreditation of international observers, including from the
EU, at least six weeks before the elections and on full access to national and international media. The EU
Heads of Mission in Harare were invited to report urgently on the progress made in view of an assessment
by the GAC on 28 January 2002.

The General Affairs Council of 28 January 2002 expressed its serious concern about the situation in
Zimbabwe, in particular the recent escalation of violence and intimidation of political opponents and the
harassment of the independent press. It noted that the Government of Zimbabwe has not taken effective
measures to improve the situation as called for by the European Council in Laeken last December.

The Council deplored the statement by the Chief of the armed forces of Zimbabwe, General Vitalis
Zvinavashe, on 9 January 2002, as a threat to overturn the democratic process if military commanders did
not agree with the result of the Presidential elections.

The Council expressed serious concern about recent legislation in Zimbabwe which, if enforced, would
seriously infringe on the right to freedom of speech, assembly and association, mainly the Public Order

C 160 E/134

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

and Security Act and the General Laws Amendment Act (both of which violate the norms and standards
for free and fair elections as agreed by SADC Parliamentarians in March 2001) and the proposed
legislation to regulate the media.

The Council took note of the assurances given by Zimbabwe at the consultations on 11 January and
confirmed in the letter from Foreign Minister Mudenge of 18 January 2002 that the Government of
Zimbabwe will i. a. do its utmost to stop violence, that the elections will be free and fair, that international
election observers including those of EU Member States will be invited, that national and international
Journalists will be allowed to cover the elections,
the Government of Zimbabwe upholds the
independence of the judiciary and that there will be no more occupation of farms or properties. The
Council however remains concerned that serious violations of human rights continue to occur and that
little progress has been made in allowing access for international election observers and for media. The
Council underlined that the Government of Zimbabwe is judged by its actions on the ground.

that

The Council will continue to co-ordinate with international partners, especially the SADC partner countries
of Zimbabwe.

The EU concludes that the essential elements defined in Article 9 of the Cotonou Agreement are not being
respected. It regrets that despite all efforts so far, the Article 96 consultations have not remedied this
situation.

Therefore the EU has decided it will close the Article 96 consultations and implement targeted sanctions if:

A the Government of Zimbabwe prevents the deployment of an EU observation mission starting by
3 February 2002, or if it later prevents the mission from operating effectively. Likewise,
if the
Government of Zimbabwe prevents the international media from having free access to cover the
election; or

A there is a serious deterioration in the situation on the ground, in terms of a worsening of the human

rights’ situation or attacks on the opposition; or

A the election is assessed as not being free and fair.

(2002/C 160 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3526/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Current expenditure and public spending

reports suggest

Recent
expenditure from measured public spending in certain Member States.

that certain financial operations have had the effect of removing current

Will the Commission indicate its policy towards such off-budget items, and will
operations in Member States of which it is aware and describe its accounting treatment in each case?

it further list those

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2002)

Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the Commission, is closely following developments in public accounts in
Member States, and monitors these trends according to the rules of the European System of National and
Regional Accounts (1) (ESA95).

Possible financial operations in Member States having the effect of
impacting general government
expenditure (2) would be monitored along the ESA95 principles, with a view to ensuring that these
principles are correctly applied and that this type of transactions are correctly classified and recorded.