WRITTEN QUESTION E-3019/02 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Human rights and democracy in Burma.
Date: 2002-10-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Myanmar/Burma, government violence, human rights, international sanctions, military regime, political prisoner, political situation, religious discrimination

C 268 E/26

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2002)

The Commission has been following the deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Northern Uganda
very closely and with increasing concern. An assessment mission undertaken by the Commission in early
October 2002 has re-confirmed this concern.

The Commission is already providing humanitarian assistance to the region through United Nations (UN)
agencies and a wide range of non-governmental organisations. This assistance comprises food aid, water
and sanitation, medical and educational supplies and support to released abductees/former child soldiers. In
particular, the Commission, through Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), has already more then doubled its
allocation for Uganda in 2002 to over EUR 2 million for the people affected, notably an estimated
700 000 internally displaced persons affected by insecurity in that region. In addition, ECHO has made
arrangements to allow ECHO Flight to respond rapidly to requests for emergency missions.

The UN agencies are currently assessing food shortages as well as harvests for the coming year and the
Commission will most probably contribute to cover part of the needs.

The Commission, together with other donors supporting Uganda, is in discussion with the Government to
ensure that the northern regions receive a fair share of the resources earmarked for development.

(2003/C 268 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3019/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Human rights and democracy in Burma

As the Commission knows, the human rights situation in Burma is still worrying and, despite the release
of a number of political prisoners, more than 1 500 are still in custody for political reasons.

Is the Commission also aware that repression of religious minorities in Burma has increased considerably
in recent years?

Will
the Commission maintain the present EU sanctions against Burma and exert pressure on the
authorities there to bring about a lasting improvement in the human rights situation and above all restore
democracy?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2002)

As has been stated on several occasions, the Commission is deeply concerned about the situation in
Burma/Myanmar and the damage the military regime is causing to the country and to its future.

The Commission is aware of reports of alleged persecutions of ethnic minority groups by the military in
Burma/Myanmar and continuously voices its grave concern about the human rights situation in the
country, particularly in ethnic minority areas.

During the Union Troika visit to Burma/Myanmar in September 2002, these concerns were once again
expressed to the Burmese government. The Troika also urged the Burmese government to release all
remaining political prisoners and to lift the remaining political restrictions on freedom of expression,
association and assembly.

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/27

The Union has a strong Common Position on Burma/Myanmar (1). It was first adopted in 1996 (2) and has
been strengthened on a number of occasions since. It includes an arms embargo imposed in 1990, the
suspension of defence co-operation since 1991 and the suspension of all bilateral aid, other than strictly
humanitarian assistance. There is also a Union visa ban on the members of the military regime, the
members of the government, senior military and security officers and their families, as well as the
suspension of high-level governmental visits to Burma/Myanmar.

Separately, Union trade privileges, normally granted to Least Developed Countries, were withdrawn from
Burma/Myanmar in 1997 because of forced labour. This also means that the country is not eligible to
benefit from the Union’s ‘Everything but Arms’ initiative, launched in 2001.

The Common Position was renewed for a further six months, without easing of sanctions, on 21 October
2002. In the Council Conclusions, which are fully supported by the Commission, the Union once again
urged the restoration of democracy, the pursuit of national reconciliation, and the protection of human
rights in Burma/Myanmar.

(1) OJ L 285, 23.10.2002.
(2) OJ L 287, 8.11.1996.

(2003/C 268 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3296/02

by Dominique Vlasto (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 November 2002)

Subject: Sale of spare parts to clock and watchmakers in the European Union

The Commission’s attention has already been drawn to the fact that clock and watchmakers are finding it
more and more difficult to obtain the spare parts required to repair watches of certain luxury brands. This
applies particularly to watches sold by Swiss manufacturers, who impose restrictions on the sale of spare
parts to independent clock and watchmakers in the European Union.

This distribution policy, modelled on that for luxury goods, has become widespread and is now followed
by most of the clock and watchmaking industry. Watch manufacturers who no longer supply spare parts
to watchmakers have developed their own repair centres, thus securing a repair monopoly and denying
consumers the option of choosing who carries out the repair.

1. Where a producer has a less than 30 % share of the relevant market, the Commission considers that
there is no restriction of competition. What is the position if a group of producers, none of which exceeds
the 30 % threshold, imposes the same restriction on the distribution of spare parts? In such a case, what
can be done to offset the negative effects on competition?

2.
The Commission has proposed new rules for the car distribution sector. Why should it not propose
new rules for the watch distribution sector to safeguard the livelihood of the thousands of independent
clock and watchmakers?

In the specific case of watches from Swiss manufacturers, can the Commission indicate whether there

3.
is any prospect of an early solution to this difficulty?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

The ban on restrictive agreements in Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty applies also to restrictive vertical
agreements where the manufacturer has less than 30 % of the relevant market when such agreements
appreciably affect
trade between Member States. Because the Commission recognizes that vertical
agreements caught by Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty may result in more positive than negative effects it