WRITTEN QUESTION E-0428/02 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council. Cameras in Athens.
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Central Greece, competence of the Member States, highway code, protection of privacy, public safety, recording equipment, town, town traffic

C 229 E/86

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

(2002/C 229 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0426/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Restrictions on freedom of expression in Turkey

According to reports in the international press, the Turkish parliament has decided to amend Article 312
of the Penal Code to make it more stringent. It will now be sufficient for there to be a suspicion of a
‘possible’ disturbance of public order to instigate the procedure to punish those responsible. According to
the reports, the entire issue was sparked off by requests from Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin for tuition
in the Kurdish language in schools and universities, which Turkey had undertaken to promote three years
ago.

The Turkish National Security Council interprets the requests from Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin as
‘separatist activities since they concern education in a language other than the official
language’. This
unprecedented development comes on top of the incredible story of Mr Fatih Tas, an editor under threat of
a one-year prison sentence for making the ‘mistake’ of publishing in Turkish a book by the eminent
American intellectual and Harvard professor, Noam Chomsky, entitled ‘American Interventionism’.
Professor Chomsky (who is sharply critical in the book of Turkey and the methods it uses to further the
ethnic cleansing of the Kurdish minority) intends to travel to Turkey on 13 February 2002 to appear
before the court in which the Turkish editor is to stand trial and then go on to Diyarbakir where a large
number of Kurds live.

Is the Council aware of the above measures by the Turkish regime? What is its opinion? Is banning books
and the use of the Kurdish language consistent with bringing Turkey into line with the standards of
conduct befitting a European state?

Reply

(27 June 2002)

The Council is aware that Article 312 of the Turkish Penal Code was amended by Act No 4 744 voted on
6 February 2002 by the Turkish Parliament. Paragraph 2 of Article 312 punishing ‘incitement to hostility
against one another’ was in particular amended by the introduction of the notion ‘in a manner that may be
dangerous to public order’. Generally, the amended provisions of the Penal Code carry little improvement
compared to the previously existing legislation, due i.a. to the fact that a broad margin of interpretation is
still left to public prosecutors and judges.

Concerning the way the Turkish authorities are dealing with freedom of expression and the cultural rights
in particular with regard to the requests for tuition in Kurdish
of Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin,
language, the Council does not fail to remind Turkey of its obligations under the accession partnership in
this respect, the forthcoming meeting of the EC-Turkey Association Council held on 16 April 2002
offering a timely new opportunity to do so.

(2002/C 229 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0428/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Cameras in Athens

The Greek press reports that some 20 cameras are to be installed at central points in Athens over the
coming months in order to photograph cars, buses and taxis which transgress the highway code. There are
plans to set up 50 observation posts with 20 mobile cameras moving between them. The installation of
these devices has naturally given rise to legitimate questions concerning the invasion of personal privacy.

What view does the Council take of the Greek authorities’ decision? Is it a breach of Community legislation
on the protection of personal data? Are there any risks associated with the installation of these devices in
terms of an individual’s civil rights and, if so, what are they? In which other Member States have such
devices been installed and how have they been used?

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/87

Reply

(26 June 2002)

Article 33 TEU excludes that the Council intervenes in internal measures aimed at maintaining public order
or protecting internal security. It is thus not for the Council to take any position in respect to the issue
raised by the Honourable Member of the European Parliament.

(2002/C 229 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0440/02

by Neil Parish (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Missing CAP funds in France

There have been reports that an official French audit of the common agricultural policy by the French
Audit Office revealed a ‘secret, uncontrolled system of agricultural subsidies that is open to abuse and is
rarely penalised even when detected’, with much of the money going to activities other than agriculture.
Moreover, it has been reported that one-third of all subsidies are inflated or wrong as a result of mistakes
or fraud and that only one-fifth of these sums are ever recovered.

Could the Commission please verify the validity of this audit? How can it justify this atrocious behaviour
towards European taxpayers, and how does it plan to rectify this gross injustice? How can such a large
amount of money be so fraudulently used by the largest recipient of CAP funds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The Commission is also aware of the audit report of the French Court of auditors (Audit Office) on the
management of agricultural subsidies in France to which the Honourable Member makes reference. The
audit report in question does raise criticism of the French administration in a number of areas. The
Commission is in the process of examining the report in more detail. However, no confirmation of the
points raised by the Honourable Member has been found.

The Commission wishes to bring to the Honourable Member’s attention that
the
Commission charged with the audit of agricultural expenditure (formerly the clearance of accounts) has
carried out a substantial number of missions in France over the years. In addition, an independent French
body, the CCCOP, carries out a detailed annual examination of the European Agricultural Guidance and
Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee expenditure in France,
including the re-examination of several
hundred individual claims per year.

the service of

These controls have, over the years,
identified a number of different problems in the control system
operated in France for EAGGF Guarantee and these have led to financial corrections imposed on France in
the clearance of accounts process, totalling around € 457 million since 1994.

The Commission uses the various published reports as a part of its risk analysis when planning audit
missions to the Member States.