WRITTEN QUESTION E-2401/02 by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission. False and damaging information on the Rome coastline posted on a German tourist site on the Internet.
Date: 2002-08-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, Internet site, Italy, advertising malpractice, bathing water, competence of the Member States, tourism

C 52 E/162

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The Commission agrees
that new developments in Neuroscience do raise ethical questions. The
Commission has already taken steps to address these issues by funding research projects on the ethical
aspects of brain research and by organising symposia at international scientific conferences such as the
symposium ‘Ethics of psychiatric genetics’ at the World Congress on Psychiatric Genetics, Brussels 8 to
12 October 2002.

The Commission specifically recognises the need for open dialogue on the ethical and social impact of new
technologies in both the Science and Society Action Plan (1) and in its communication on Life sciences and
biotechnology (cid:1) A strategy for Europe (2).

The launching of a public debate regarding the advances in Neuroscience and its ethical and social
implications is currently being discussed with the European Group on Life Sciences. This high level group
of scientists was established in April 2000 by the Member of the Commission responsible for Research
with the objective of contributing to the organisation and animation of a Life Science Discussion Platform.
The Commission is willing to investigate the possibility of organising a public debate on this topic.

Providing advice on the ethical aspects of new developments in Neuroscience is clearly in the remits of the
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies. The Group is an independent, pluralist and
multidisciplinary body with a wide range of expertise including science and medicine, informatics, law,
philosophy and theology. Therefore, the Commission does not consider it necessary to create a new
advisory body to give advice in the field of neuroscience.

(1) COM(2001) 714 final.
(2) OJ C 55, 2.3.2002.

(2003/C 52 E/179)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2401/02

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 August 2002)

Subject: False and damaging information on the Rome coastline posted on a German tourist site on the

Internet

Is the Commission aware of the fact that, on its Internet site (www.marcopolo.de/index), Germany’s leading
tourist guide, Marco Polo, makes the totally unjustified accusation that the Rome coastline (cid:1) with
particular reference to the beach at Ostia (cid:1) is infested with rubbish and terrible diseases, going so far as to
make defamatory statements about the presence of typhus fever and cholera among other things?

What action does the Commission intend to take in order to make the truth known and to protect Ostia’s
image, given that the Italian public health authorities have categorically denied any risks and given
assurances that it is safe to bathe anywhere on the coast?

How does it intend to prevent the major efforts and investments being made by the public authorities and
the private sector with a view to enhancing the Rome coastline’s appeal to Italian and foreign tourists from
being undermined by false accusations?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

The Commission has no knowledge of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member.

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, actions aimed at promoting or safeguarding the image of a
specific tourist destination are the sole responsibility of the national and/or regional authorities.

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/163

It is not therefore possible for the Commission to intervene or take initiatives along the lines advocated by
the Honourable Member.

(2003/C 52 E/180)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2423/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(20 August 2002)

Subject: Disappearance of Venerable Thich Tri Luc (Mr Pham Van Tuong)

Thich Tri Luc, whose secular name is Pham Van Tuong, was born in 1954 and is an active member of the
UBCV (Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam) movement for religious freedom, democracy and human
rights. Thich Tri Luc was first arrested in 1992 and detained for 10 months without trial. He was again
arrested on 5 November 1994 for participating in a UBCV mission to rescue flood victims. He was
sentenced to two and a half years detention and five years’ house arrest at an unfair trial in Ho Chi Minh
City, where he was charged with ‘abusing democratic freedoms to harm the interests of the State’. On
19 April 2002, Thich Tri Luc fled to Cambodia to escape religious persecution in Vietnam. He applied for
refugee status at the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Phnom Penh and was granted
such status on 28 June 2002.

Since Thursday, 25 July, the UNHCR Office in Phnom Penh has been unable to secure information on his
current whereabouts. Given reports that Vietnamese secret police routinely enter Cambodia to arrest,
forcibly repatriate and even murder refugees from the ethnic Montagnard minority fleeing persecution in
Vietnam, there is reason for concern about his safety.

Is the Commission aware of the disappearance of Thich Tri Luc (Mr Pham Van Tuong) and of the forcible
repatriation of political refugees seeking asylum in Cambodia carried out by the Vietnamese authorities?
More generally, how does the Commission intend to implement
the
cooperation agreement between Vietnam and the EU and, in particular, to address the grave concern over
the harassment and detention of religious leaders in Vietnam once again expressed by the United Nations’
Human Rights Committee in Geneva?

the human rights clause of

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The Commission is aware of the disappearance of the Venerable Thich Tri Luc and is following up the
matter continuously with the local
representatives of both the UNHCR (United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees) and the UNCHR (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights).
The Commission assesses the situation with the Union’s Member State Representatives in Phnom Penh on
a regular basis. The recent visit of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs Mary Robinson,
provided a further opportunity to take up the matter with the Cambodian authorities.

The Commission has a frank and open dialogue with the Cambodian authorities on human rights issues,
including during the last European Community-Cambodia Joint Committee meeting in May 2002. Union
demarches related to the respect of human rights have taken place in Phnom Penh on several occasions.
The Delegation in Phnom Penh is also in regular contact with local human rights non-governmental
organisations (NGOs).

Concerning the implementation of human rights clause in the European Community-Vietnam Co-
operation Agreement, questions related to the respect and promotion of human rights are addressed in the
meetings of the European Community-Vietnam Joint Commission. The Member State embassies and the
Commission Delegation in Hanoi also have frequent discussions with the Vietnamese authorities on human
rights issues, including specific cases.