WRITTEN QUESTION E-1177/02 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission. Muslim imams' incitement to violence.
Date: 2002-04-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union, competence of the Member States, free movement of persons, human rights, public safety, religious fundamentalism, removal, residence permit, violence

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/77

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2002)

The Commission confirms that, within the internal market, free movement of pharmaceutical products
may be beneficial for the consumers and national social security schemes since they provide consumers
with a broader choice of pharmaceutical products at a lower price through enhanced competition within
the internal market. Such considerations have been taken on board in the case law to which the
Honourable Member refers.

As regards the protection of industrial property rights for pharmaceutical products, the Union recalled (cid:1) in
the context of enlargement negotiations- the importance it attaches to the existence of an equal level of
protection of industrial property rights within the enlarged Union.

In its reply to written question P-0234/02 by the Honourable Member (1), the Commission indicated that
the Union (cid:1) in the context of enlargement negotiations (cid:1) has proposed a specific mechanism in order to
minimise potential problems resulting from the differences relating to the level of industrial property rights
protection. Taking into account the date of introduction of patent protection in the candidate countries, all
medicinal products which were marketed in the applicant countries before the change in the legislation
took place, will remain unprotected there while they are still under patent in the Union. Therefore, this
mechanism refers to the overall level of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protection and will only apply to
products patented in a Member State at the time when a product patent could not be obtained in
candidate countries for that product.

The Union considered that this solution constitutes an objective and balanced mechanism which takes into
account the legitimate interest of the patent holders within the Union whilst it does not infringe or
undermine any existing rights of operators in the candidate countries.

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002.

(2003/C 28 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1177/02

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(25 April 2002)

Subject: Muslim imams’ incitement to violence

European citizens’ security, European human rights and peace in the Member States are under threat from
certain fundamentalist Muslim imams who are openly calling in the Member States for ‘holy war’ and
publicly supporting the use of Islamic law, Sharia.

In declaration upon declaration, the EU proclaims its intention to create an area of peace, security and
justice. It may seem contrary to such designs for the EU to allow fundamentalist political forces, under the
guise of alleged religious faith, to call on Muslims in Europe to go to ‘holy war’ and to voice their support
for Islamic law, the atrocities of Sharia.

On 5 April 2002, during Friday prayers at a Copenhagen mosque, Imam Ahmed Abu Laban, whose
followers number between 10 000 and 15 000, called on his fellow believers to support their compatriots
at home who, he claimed, wanted ‘jihad’ and were willing to pay the price to liberate the Al Aqsa mosque
in Jerusalem. The newspaper Politiken reports him as saying ‘you must not believe that those killed in
combat are dead. They are alive with Allah and Allah bestows gifts upon them. We should think about
being active rather than passive.’ He added that Muslims should not rely on the UN or its Security Council
but should put their trust in Allah over the Middle East conflict.

Only a week earlier, the same imam had voiced his support for the use of Sharia to carry out the death
sentence imposed on a Nigerian woman, Safiya Hussaini, for adultery.

C 28 E/78

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

In a judgment of 31 July 2001 (cases 41340/98 and 41342/98), the European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg ruled that Sharia (Islamic law) is clearly contrary to the values set out in the Convention on
Human Rights. Nevertheless, the EU’s contribution has consisted in the main of one distorted report after
another from the so-called Observatory for Racism and Xenophobia vilifying anyone who voices
misgivings about the advance of fundamentalism in the EU.

Will the Commission take steps to introduce legislation which ensures that any person inciting to ‘holy
war’, violence and violation of human rights is deported from the EU?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2002)

The Commission would point out that the European Union is founded on the principles, common to all
the Member States, of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms,
including freedom of expression, within the limits laid down by the law. The Commission deplores any
action that could constitute an incitement to hatred or to the violation of human rights.

The Commission does not intend to propose legislation ensuring that any person inciting to ‘holy war’,
violence or the violation of human rights is deported from the territory of the European Union. The
Member States are responsible for deportations from their territories on grounds of public policy and
public security.

In the case of EU citizens and members of their families who have a right to free movement within the
European Union, Articles 39(3), 46(1) and 55 of the EC Treaty allow Member States to restrict the right to
free movement where this is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Such
measures must
in any event comply with the requirements of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of
25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of
foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (1).

The Commission would also refer to Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual
recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals (2). This Directive allows Member States
to recognise an expulsion decision by another Member State, where a person poses a serious and present
threat to public order or national security and safety.

Moreover, on 10 April 2002 the Commission launched a broad debate with the release of a Green Paper
on a Community Return Policy on Illegal Residents (3). The Green Paper calls, inter alia, for more reflection
on whether the grounds for expulsion decisions should be further aligned.

(1) OJ L 56, 4.4.1964.
(2) OJ L 149, 2.6.2001, p. 34.
(3) COM(2002) 175.

(2003/C 28 E/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1179/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 April 2002)

Subject: Printing of recommended retail price on books sold on the internal market

In some Member States, but not others, recommended retail prices are printed on books. The Market Court
in Sweden has now found in its judgment 2002/5 of 22 February 2002 that if publishers mark paperbacks
with a recommended retail price, that measure is deemed tantamount to an agreement or concerted
practice between undertakings, which is contrary to 6 § of the Swedish Competition Law.