WRITTEN QUESTION E-2438/02 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Arrest and imprisonment in Tunisia of a woman and her two children (respectively eight- and two-years old).
Date: 2002-08-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Tunisia, association agreement (EU), political violence

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/169

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2002)

Applications for support for international non-governmental youth organisations are evaluated in two
stages:

(cid:1) first on the basis of eligibility criteria, i.e. formal criteria relating, in particular, to the organisation’s
in

its geographical coverage and its co-financing capacity (as regards this last criterion,

status,
accordance with the remarks in the budget);

(cid:1) next on the basis of qualitative and quantitative award criteria, relating in particular to their activities

and the impact of these activities on young people.

These eligibility and award criteria are outlined in the call for proposals for the year 2002 (1). All potential
beneficiaries are therefore aware of them in advance.

The evaluation committee based its analysis of the applications on all the above-mentioned criteria. Those
applications which did not meet the formal eligibility criteria were of course rejected.

The applications which met the eligibility criteria were ranked in descending order of priority, based on
the number of points they obtained in terms of meeting the award criteria. This procedure was followed in
2002, and in previous years also.

Overall, the amount of funding requested in the 147 applications submitted came to EUR 2 500 000,
which was EUR 1 000 000 more than the appropriations available under the 2002 budget line A-3029.

Based on the priority ranking established by the selection committee, grants were awarded to the highest
possible number of organisations, within the limits of the overall budget availability of EUR 1 500 000.
Thus, grants ended up being awarded to 93 organisations, or 63 % of the applications submitted. The
applications rejected at this stage did not contain such impressive activity plans as those selected.

In 2001, the percentage of applications selected was 82 %. But this was because the total amount of
funding requested was lower (only EUR 2 000 000). It is also worth pointing out that the award of a grant
in 2001 in no way guarantees the award of a grant in 2002.

The Commission makes every effort to ensure maximum transparency, both regarding the criteria used
and the funding decisions taken. For the 2003 grants exercise, the Commission will again spell out these
criteria in the call for proposals and will make more effort to explain the reasons for the non-selection of
certain applications in the letters sent out to the organisations concerned.

(1) OJ C 352, 12.12.2001.

(2003/C 52 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2438/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(28 August 2002)

Subject: Arrest and imprisonment in Tunisia of a woman and her two children (respectively eight- and

two-years old)

During the evening of 15 August 2002, Mrs Souad Hamrouni, née Maghroum (born 6 July 1967 in
Bizerty); travelled on flight LBT 365 to Tunis with her two children, Rahma (eight years old) and Amine
(two and a half years old), both of whom were born in France. On arrival at Tunis-Carthage Airport at
11 p.m., she was arrested by border police who searched and then questioned her in front of her two
children. According to the police officers, she was then taken to the Ministry of the Interior, where she
spent the night with her two children. Mr Abderraouf Ayadi, Mr Abdelwahab Matar and Mr Mohamed
Abou, three lawyers and friends of the family who had come to meet Mrs Hamrouni at the airport, were
present when she was arrested and were able to observe the irregular nature of this arrest.

C 52 E/170

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Is the Commission aware of the arrest? What measures does it intend to take to make clear to the Tunisian
authorities that such practices are absolutely incompatible with Article 2 of the EU-Tunisia Association
Agreement (‘human rights clause’)? More generally, does not the Commission believe that President Ben
Ali’s dictatorship has now become intolerable?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The Commission quickly learned of Mrs Hamrouni’s arrest through press releases published by her
husband and human rights organisations in Tunisia.

It also has documents from the Tunisian authorities emphasising that Mrs Hamrouni was released straight
after questioning.

The Commission regularly points out to the Tunisian authorities the importance it attaches to freedom of
speech and political pluralism, both as values in their own right and as basic parameters for the
development of a modern society.

At the meeting of the EC-Tunisia Association Committee in Tunis on 25 September we will once again
reiterate our attachment to the democratic principles to which Tunisia subscribed when it signed the
Association Agreement with the Community.

(2003/C 52 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2444/02

by Christel Fiebiger (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 August 2002)

Subject: Commissioner Fischler’s remark on direct payments to large holdings

In Commission press release IP/02/1125 of 23 July 2002, ‘Franz Fischler in Berlin:’
‘Farm policy cannot
turn a blind eye to society’s expectations’, Commissioner Fischler is quoted as saying, on the proposed
upper limit on direct payments, that it is not fair for 80 % of the money to go to 20 % of the largest
holdings.

This remark has given the public the impression, as can be verified by reports in the media, that the ‘20 %
of the largest holdings’ means holdings with a farmed area of 1000 or more hectares (especially as the
proposed capping ceiling would affect a large proportion of such holdings) and that it is these holdings
that receive 80 % of direct payments. But this is manifestly incorrect.

At farmers’ meetings I have attended, justifying the proposal on ceilings in this way (irrespective of how its
substance is assessed) was felt to be politically unfair. It would therefore be advisable either to provide hard
evidence to back up this, in my view misleading, remark or to rectify it.

Therefore the following questions:

1. What concrete statistical evidence is there to back up the remark concerning direct payments that
80 % of the money goes to 20 % of the largest holdings (for the EU as a whole and for individual
Member States)?

2. What specific business and/or statistical criteria does the Commission use for defining ‘large holdings’,

and what are the key figures for the ‘20 % of the largest holdings’ subcategory?