WRITTEN QUESTION E-2084/02 by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission. Lengthy delays in the adoption of children from Andhra Pradesh (India).
Date: 2002-07-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: India, adoption law, adoption of a child, cooperation policy, fight against crime, trafficking in human beings

C 192 E/48

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

The Presidency Conclusions of the Seville European Council (21/22 June 2002) state, in paragraph 22, that
the ‘drafting of the Treaty of Accession should continue so that it can be completed as soon as possible
after the conclusion of the accession negotiations. It would seem reasonable to expect that the Treaty of
Accession could be signed in spring 2003’. The Commission also recalls the Note from the Presidency on
enlargement annexed to the Conclusions that states that ‘in line with the conclusions of the European
Council in Laeken (14/15 December 2001), the drafting of the accession Treaty has started in March’. It
should be recognised that it is not the Commission but the Council that is the major actor in this respect.

The Commission refers to the intergovernmental nature of an accession conference. Therefore all
agreements that are reached in the course of the negotiations are based on unanimous decisions of all
parties, which may already involve their national Parliaments in accordance with their constitutional
requirements. Once the accession Treaty is signed it shall be submitted for ratification by all contracting
parties in accordance with their national requirements. These national requirements include an assent by
national Parliaments of the Treaty agreed beforehand by the negotiators of the contracting parties.

The Commission also refers to the procedure foreseen in Article 49 of the Treaty on the European Union.
As a result the decision of the Council to sign the accession Treaty is based on a positive vote of the
European Parliament on the accession of each single country.

The Commission contributes to this process by providing the Member States with a considerable amount
of monitoring and assessment information, in particular through its Regular Reports on each individual
candidate country.

(2003/C 192 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2084/02

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Lengthy delays in the adoption of children from Andhra Pradesh (India)

Fifteen Spanish families (and others from the USA, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium) are
involved in the process of adopting children from the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, in which connection
Unicef has drawn up reports condemning the precarious physical and psychological conditions in which
children available for adoption find themselves.

Cooperation on the part of the Andhra Pradesh Welfare Department (which is responsible for adoptions) is
not yet forthcoming, even though Spanish and Indian law relating to international adoptions has been
complied with. In the meantime, India and its neighbour Pakistan have placed themselves on a war
footing. In these circumstances, could the EU make representations to the Indian Prime Minister (and,
where appropriate, to the Prime Minister of Andhra Pradesh) with a view to speeding up the adoption
process?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2002)

The Commission is aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member concerning current delays in
adoption of children in Andhra Pradesh.

In 2001, India faced a major adoption scandal in several states, namely Orissa, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu
and Andhra Pradesh. The scandal was most intense in Andhra Pradesh, and the State Government
conducted an uncompromising policy to stop adoption centres to continue the alleged children traffic in
India and internationally. The Centre Adoption Resource Agency (CARA), withdrew the licenses from all
the alleged centres transferring them to government centres. In order to conduct a thorough investigation,
and to be able to control the situation, the Andra Pradesh Government has, since 2001, put obstacles and
hindrance into adoption procedures. Since CARA, which is the body which gives the final No Objection

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/49

Certificate (NOC) in international adoptions, had given several NOC to couples, even though apparent
irregularities are found in the adoption procedures, CARA has now intervened as a party in the judicial
trial in the High Court of Hyderabad, where non governmental organisations (NGOs) and parents have
filed their cases.

A Union representation at
interference in the independence of judiciary.

this stage would be counterproductive since it could be viewed as an

(2003/C 192 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2088/02

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Slavery

In late May, the US-led Eminent Persons Group on Slavery, which was set up by President Bush and
includes members from a number of European countries, published a damning report on the situation in
Sudan. The Group accused the Sudanese Government of turning a blind eye to slavery. Slavery is a
phenomenon which occurs not only in a large number of African countries but also, for example, in the
Islamic Gulf States, in the Caucasus and in south-east Asia.

Is the Commission aware of the existence of that report? What political conclusions does it draw

1.
therefrom?

Is the Commission aware of slavery occurring in ACP States? If so, what policy is it pursuing with a

2.
view to this practice being abolished in those countries?

3. What sanctions does the Commission have at its disposal
abolition of slavery in those countries where its existence is proven?

if no progress is made towards the

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2002)

The Commission was informed that an International Eminent Persons Group (IEPG) in the framework of
the mission of the United States Presidential Envoy for Peace in the Sudan, Senator J. Danforth, was
requested to investigate the situation on Slavery, Abduction and Forced Servitude in the Sudan. The
Commission is aware that the IEPG issued a report for the consideration of both Senator Danforth and the
United States’ Administration for possible follow-up. Although the Commission was involved neither in its
preparation nor in its possible implementation it considers the report as a very useful tool for a better
understanding of these sensitive matters. Furthermore, and as it is suggested by the IEPG, deeper research
and analysis is needed even in the eventuality of a peace settlement. The Union has consistently underlined
its opposition to contemporary slavery, including at the 58th session of the United Nations Commission
on Human Rights (CHR). The Union also expressed its concern at the incidences of forced labour in the
resolution which it introduced on Sudan at the last CHR.

The Union’s Annual Human Rights Report of 2001 addresses the issue of slavery in the section dealing
with trafficking in human beings and points to several initiatives taken by the Union to combat such
practices. Moreover, Article 5 of the Charter for Fundamental Rights, proclaimed by the Union at Nice in
December 2000, underlines the prohibition of slavery and forced labour.

The Commission is aware of slavery occurring in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states. Where
possible it tries to discuss the issue with the authorities. However, it also acts through support to non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) and the civil society. The Cotonou Agreement provides a new basis for
discussion on those kinds of topic (Article 8) which should be used in the future. Moreover, the Cotonou
Agreement provides instruments for when human rights and the rule of law are violated in a country.