WRITTEN QUESTION E-1115/02 by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Commission. Violation of the European Convention on Human Rights by Netherlands emergency law on drug couriers.
Date: 2002-04-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Convention on Human Rights, Netherlands, application of EU law, detention before trial, human rights, infringement procedure (EU), prison system

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/89

Within the current legal framework in the EU, the maximum limits on residues in a medicine for
veterinary use are laid down following an assessment of an application filed by a pharmaceutical firm.
Sometimes, in the course of evaluating the documentation concerning existing substances, the scientific
findings did not allow maximum limits on residues to be fixed because the data provided by the
pharmaceutical firms were insufficient. This is especially the case with antibiotics such as tetracyclines and
sulphonamides, which are authorised for use in the EU with all animal species except bees. However, the
use of these substances for treating bees is legal in some non-member countries. This problem could be
dealt with by the Commission in the context of future provisions laying down maximum acceptable limits
in products from non-member countries.

(2002/C 301 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1115/02

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Violation of the European Convention on Human Rights by Netherlands emergency law on drug

couriers

Recently (on 5 March 2002) the Netherlands adopted two emergency laws on the detention of cocaine
smugglers. What is and is not allowed in the treatment of detainees is set out in the Netherlands in two
basic laws. The emergency laws temporarily suspend these basic laws for a specific category of detainee. As
justification for this the Netherlands government cites an emergency arising from ‘major capacity problems
in detention centres and prisons’.

As a result of these changes to the law, prisoners being held on suspicion can, in contrast with usual
practice in the Netherlands, be put in the same cell as convicted criminals, and minors with adult
prisoners. In addition, restrictions are placed inter alia on constructive use of time, visiting rights, access to
rehabilitation and vocational possibilities. This would appear to be in violation of international criteria
such as those laid down, for example, in the substantive sections of the general reports of the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhumane and Degrading Treatment and with Article 3 of the
European Convention on Human Rights.

Article 6 of the EU Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union affirm the
fundamental importance that the EU attaches to human rights. In that it is entitled to attend the relevant
deliberations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (Arrangement between the Council of
Europe and the European Community of 16 June 1987) and on the basis of Article 303 of the EC Treaty,
the Commission can put human rights issues on the agenda for the Council of Ministers, which has direct
authority in this area.

1.

Is the Commission familiar with the content of the aforementioned Netherlands laws?

2.
Does it share my concern that fundamental principles, as contained in the European Convention on
Human Rights and the reports of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, are being violated as a
result of these laws?

3. What possibilities does it see of raising these problems with the Netherlands government?

4.

Is it prepared to bring this matter to the attention of the Council of Europe for further investigation?

If a similar situation were to arise in an applicant country, what steps could the Commission take,

5.
and should this subject be included in the annual progress reports?

C 301 E/90

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2002)

The Commission notes that the issues raised by the Honourable Member are closely linked with respect for
a number of principles common to the Member States, which are referred to in Article 6 of the Treaty on
European Union (TEU) and restated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The infringement procedure provided for by Article 226 of the EC Treaty and the political procedure laid
down in Article 7 of the TEU are there to enforce compliance with these principles by the Member States.
Under Article 226, the Commission can bring an action before the Court of Justice if the act to which the
complaint relates falls within the remit of Community law. Under Article 7, the Commission or one third
of the Member States can submit a complaint 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 set out in Article 6.

In the case in question, however, it is impossible to establish the misapplication of Community law as the
Union has no legislative powers in the field concerned. Nor can a serious and persistent breach within the
meaning of Article 7 of the TEU be established.

Consequently, the Commission takes the view that it is not entitled to take the measures suggested by the
Honourable Member vis-à-vis the Dutch authorities and the Council of Europe.

The Commission takes account of the situation with respect to fundamental rights when drawing up its
regular reports on the applicant countries.

It is worthwhile recalling that persons who consider that their fundamental rights have been violated are at
liberty to seek judicial remedy within their national system, and, once such possibilities have been
exhausted, to bring an action before the European Court of Human Rights in the event of a breach of the
European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

(2002/C 301 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1148/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 April 2002)

Subject: Alpine Convention

The Preamble to the Alpine Convention states clearly that the Convention came into existence in the
awareness that the Alps constitute an ‘economic, cultural and recreational space and environment at the
heart of Europe distinguished by nature, culture and history’. By acknowledging these special features, the
to promoting a comprehensive policy of protection and
signatory states committed themselves
preservation of the Alps and to supporting transfrontier cooperation in this area.

The European Union also signed the framework convention and thereby committed itself to the above.

Although the application of the Alpine Convention is geographically limited to the Alpine region, the Alps
are the most important mountain system in Europe. The Alpine Convention is therefore exemplary for
other mountain regions in the European Union and for the future Member States. The Alpine region
extends over four EU Member States (Italy, France, Germany and Austria) and the applicant country
Slovenia. The protection of the Alps may not, therefore, be regarded as a matter to be dealt with bilaterally
between the individual countries, as it is of general European interest.

Can the Commission therefore state why it has been conspicuous by its absence at all the Alpine
Convention’s meetings and has not signed the additional protocols?