WRITTEN QUESTION E-1314/02 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Swedish ban on cultivation of low-THC hemp.
Date: 2002-05-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, agricultural policy, appeal to the Court (EU), application of EU law, drug addiction, hemp, interinstitutional relations (EU)

C 309 E/110

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

The purpose of the Consultation Paper on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal
proceedings was to launch a Europe-wide reflection on the areas where common standards should apply in
the treatment of suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the Union. It is meant to
help the Commission prepare a Green Paper later this year. The Consultation Paper touches upon the issue
of detention but is limited in scope to procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal
proceedings. It does cover immigration and customs officers where they suspect an asylum seeker of
having committed a criminal offence.

In the area of asylum, the Commission brought forward a proposal on minimum standards on procedures
in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status in September 2000 (1) which inter alia set a
framework for assessing the legitimacy of cases of detention and obliged Member States to introduce an
initial review and subsequent regular reviews. The Commission is currently preparing an amended
proposal, taking into account the opinion of the Parliament and the Conclusions adopted by the Justice
and Home Affairs (JHA) Council at its meeting on 7 December 2001. It is expected that the amended
proposal will include a modified provision on detention.

In June 2002 the Council should formally adopt a Directive on the reception of asylum seekers which
include some specific provision in relation to the reception of asylum seekers who are detained while the
exam of their application is still pending. According to Article 13 of this Directive Member States will have
to ensure the same quality of the reception normally granted to asylum seekers also in the specific
situation of persons who are in detention.
In addition this Directive ensures that legal advisors or
counsellors of applicants for asylum and representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees as well as the relevant non-governmental organisations (NGOs) will be granted access to the
housing facilities (which include detention centres) in order to assist the applicants.

the
As regards detention pending removal of
Commission’s Green Paper on a Community return policy on illegal residents (2) invites all
interested
parties to comment on precisely the question asked by the Honourable Member: should binding standards
on detention be established for these cases? If so, should this include legal preconditions, accommodation
standards and time limits to limit the maximum duration of detention?

rejected applicants for asylum or

residents,

illegal

(1) OJ C 193, 10.7.2001.
(2) COM(2002) 175 final.

(2002/C 309 E/128)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1314/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(8 May 2002)

Subject: Swedish ban on cultivation of low-THC hemp

In view of the importance of protecting people’s lives and health by taking measures to combat drug
misuse, and of the obvious difficulties of carrying out checks involved in authorising the cultivation of
low-THC hemp, the Swedish Government has considered it warranted not to allow such cultivation in the
country. The Swedish Government and a large majority in the Swedish Riksdag have no intention of
altering the Swedish rules at the present time.

However, the Swedish ban on hemp-growing is currently under consideration in the Court of Justice and
Sweden may possibly be compelled by a court judgment to review its decision. Can the Council envisage
taking a decision which gives the Member States the right to make their own decisions whether to
authorise or ban the cultivation of low-THC hemp?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

It is not for the Council to adopt a position on the national laws of the Member States or on cases
currently before the Court of Justice.

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/111

Moreover, the Council has not received a Commission proposal along the lines of the suggestion made by
the Honourable Member.

(2002/C 309 E/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1322/02

by Thierry de La Perriere (NI) to the Commission

Subject: Web site of United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP)

(2 May 2002)

The British Daily Telegraph has published a report (1) directly calling into question the behaviour of the
European Commission or some of its staff.

The newspaper investigated a number of e-mails sent to the discussion forum on the anti-EU UK
Independence Party’s web site and containing violent attacks on that party’s ideas. The source of these
messages has been identified. It is the European Commission’s offices in the Jean Monnet Building, in
Luxembourg.

Can the Commission confirm or deny this report?

Should these allegations be confirmed, does it intend to take disciplinary action against those of its staff
involved in this misuse of the European administration’s time and equipment?

(1) Daily Telegraph, Wednesday 3 April 2002 (cid:1) Peterborough.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

The Commission can confirm that messages have been posted on the discussion forum of the United
Kingdom Independence Party from an office address of the Commission.

In general terms, Commission officials enjoy the freedom of expression which, according to case law (1),
extends to the oral or written expression of opinions that dissent from, or conflict with, those held by the
employing institution. It is clear however, that this is not an unlimited prerogative and it may be subject to
reasonable limits in the interest of the service. In the case referred to by the Honourable Member, this
means that officials must avoid any action which might result in ideas that are expressed in a private
capacity being mistaken for the official views of the Institution. It also means that officials should refrain
from making libellous or offensive public statements which could run counter to Article 12 of the Staff
Regulations relating to the dignity of the service.

Examination of the discussion forum has revealed no trace of a ‘bevy of colourful postings abusing the
UKIP’ by ‘pen pushers’, as the Daily Telegraph describes it. Instead of that, an open and informed debate
seems to be going on between pro and anti Union views. Neither the webmaster of the site, who
moderates the discussion (2), nor other contributors to the forum appear to have been offended by the
postings referred to by the newspaper.

These considerations mean that the Commission will not be opening disciplinary proceedings against the
official(s) concerned. However, it will address a reminder of the terms and conditions for the use of the
internet at the Commission to the person(s) concerned. According to these terms and conditions, internet
use for private purposes is allowed within reasonable limits, but a disclaimer should be added to each
contribution which emphasises that the views expressed are those of the writer and should not in any
circumstance be regarded to represent an official Commission view.

(1) See for example cases T-82/99, Michael Cwik/Commission, judgement of the CFI of 14 July 2000 and C-274/99 P,

Bernard Connolly/Commission, judgement of the Court of Justice of 6 March 2001.

(2) The rules for use of the forum provide that ‘the Forum is moderated, and offensive or otherwise unacceptable

content may be removed’.