WRITTEN QUESTION E-2758/02 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Execution of Mr Yoshiteru Hamada and Mr Tatsuya Haruta.
Date: 2002-10-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, EU relations, Japan, Troika (EU), death penalty, human rights, the EU's international role

C 92 E/206

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Over the longer term, there are three additional monitoring processes:

(cid:1) The accredited Sapard agencies are subject to the same financial and conformity clearance exercises as
the paying agencies of Member States under the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF).

(cid:1) Per Article 7 (Annex, Section B) of the MAFA, each candidate country must set up a Monitoring
Committee, the purpose of which is,
inter alia, to ‘review progress made towards achieving the
objectives set out in the Programme’, and to propose modifications to that programme if appropriate.

(cid:1) The agencies are also required by the MAFA (q.v. the Annex, under Article 8 of Section B), to submit

annual programme implementation reports for review.

The Commission is concerned with the technical competence and procedural knowledge of those recruited
both pre- and post-accreditation, not their political affiliations. A similar situation arose in Bulgaria, where
one of the two deputy directors of the Sapard Agency was removed without prior notification to the
Commission, and there were allegations that many other people in situ at the time of accreditation were
facing the same fate.

A claim for payment was suspended until the facts of the case were established, achieved via a request for
information. The information was duly supplied, enabling the payment to be made, and further audit
comfort was obtained through a follow-up mission, the findings of which were satisfactory.

(2003/C 92 E/266)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2758/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(1 October 2002)

Subject: Execution of Mr Yoshiteru Hamada and Mr Tatsuya Haruta

On Prime Minister Koizumi’s return from his trip to North Korea yesterday the Japanese authorities in all
likelihood executed two people (cid:1) Mr Yoshiteru Hamada and Tatsuya Haruta. In response to an earlier
question on the death penalty in Japan (E-2421/02 (1)), Mr Patten, on behalf of the Commission, stated in
particular that ‘a Union troika démarche, addressed to the Japanese Minister of Justice, was … carried out
on 18 February 2002 with a full explanation of the Union’s position on the death penalty’ and also that
‘the subject is kept under review by the Heads of Mission with a view to further initiatives …’.

What has been the Commission’s reaction to this double execution? Will it undertake joint initiatives with
the Council of Europe, of which Japan is an observer state, as regards abolishing the death penalty?
Moreover, in general, what initiatives has the Commission undertaken, or will it undertake, in order to
inform the Japanese authorities that the abolition of the death penalty in the democratic states of Asia, and
in particular Japan, India, South Korea, Thailand and Taiwan, is of particular importance, precisely because
they are democratic countries, which have special relations with the European Union?

(1) See page 167.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2002)

The Commission participated in an Union Troika démarche to Minister of Justice Moriyama on 4 October
2002 expressing deep regret at the executions and the recent imposition of further death sentences and
setting out the basis for the Union’s opposition to the application of the death penalty.

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/207

In its opposition to the death penalty the Union does not distinguish between countries which are
democracies and those which are not: the goal is universal abolition. The Guidelines to the EU Policy
towards third countries on the death penalty (1) adopted in 1998 set out the basis for the Union’s policy
and indicate the actions (cid:1) including general and specific démarches (cid:1) which the Union will undertake
with respect to third countries. In addition to voicing its general opposition to the death penalty in fora
such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) and the UN General Assembly Third
Committee (including the tabling of the annual resolution in the UNCHR) the Union has also set out its
views on the death penalty in specific countries (cid:1) for example, in its Human Rights in the World speech
at the UNCHR this year, the Union stated that it regretted the increase in the application of the death
penalty in Thailand.

The Commission is currently evaluating the proposals received under the recent Call for Proposals on
abolition of the death penalty under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR).
This will provide EUR 7 million for projects to promote abolition in countries which retain the death
penalty.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/human_rights/adp/guide_en.htm.

(2003/C 92 E/267)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2764/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 October 2002)

Subject: Language discrimination (cid:1) inquiry into the recruitment of native speakers

According to its answer to Written Question E-0941/02 (1), the European Commission acknowledges that
the phrase ‘native speaker’
‘is not acceptable, under any circumstances’; under Community law. On the
other hand, the Commission does not want to prohibit the use of the term in job advertisements.
Furthermore,
it wants to use its powers to fight against any discrimination ‘caused by a requirement
for’native speaker‘knowledge in job advertisements’. At the same time, it recommends using a phrase such
as ‘perfect or very good knowledge of a particular language’.

Is the Commission aware that the simple replacement of one phrase by another does nothing to

1.
resolve the substantive problem?

Is it also aware that most employers looking for a native speaker (cid:1) while not admitting it explicitly

2.
(cid:1) in fact only invite native speakers to apply?

3.

(a)

(b)

Has the Commission already conducted an investigation into this phenomenon?

If not, why not? Does it
investigation?

intend to make this form of discrimination into the subject of an

If so, what were the findings of the investigation, and what conclusions may be drawn therefrom with
regard to policy proposals?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 161.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2002)

the opinion that a ‘native speaker’ condition contained in recruitment
The Commission is of
announcements is not acceptable under Community rules on free movement of workers, as it is unlawfully
discriminatory. Therefore the Commission considers that the use of this term in job advertisements is
prohibited by Community law. This has been explained,
in numerous replies to written
questions, to non-governmental organisations and to the Advisory Committee on Free Movement of
Workers (representatives of the Member States and the Social Partners).

inter alia,