WRITTEN QUESTION E-3107/02 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Suicide bomber Barbie.
Date: 2002-10-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: artistic profession, censorship, freedom of expression, offence, penalty, terrorism

C 161 E/68

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

In conformity with Article 18 of this Directive, the Commission has prepared periodic reports (3) on the
application in the Member States of this Directive. These reports to the European Parliament, the Council
and the Economic and Social Committee are based on the information provided by Member States on the
implementation of the Directive and the situation regarding shipments within their respective territory.

As regards exports out of the Community, the authorisation procedure, the administrative supervision and
control by the competent authorities of the Member States of origin and the country of destination are laid
down in Articles 11 and 12 of the Directive.

No shipments of radioactive waste from Member States to Serbia have been reported to the Commission.

In the absence of precise indications as to the origin of the materials and of any notification of shipments
of radioactive waste to Serbia, the Commission cannot take any specific action at this moment.

However, the Commission has written to the Member States to obtain more information.

(1) Council Directive of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public

and workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation, OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992.
(3) COM(2001) 270 final, COM(98) 778 final and COM(95) 192 final.

(2003/C 161 E/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3107/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(29 October 2002)

Subject:

‘Suicide bomber’ Barbie

The 13 August 2002 issue of the Italian weekly ‘Panorama’ reported that the London-based artist Simon
Tyszko had produced a provocative ‘suicide bomber’ version of the famous Barbie doll, complete with
sticks of explosive around her waist, as is tragically the case with the real-life terrorists who carry out
suicide bombings in Israel. The proceeds from the sale of this morbid invention were to go, generously and
without a hint of hypocrisy, to Amnesty International.

Given the recent upsurge in international terrorism and the tragic increase in suicide bombings: would the
Commission not consider it appropriate to propose that the Council define as a Community offence any
act or statement which aims to directly or indirectly promote (cid:1) even via seemingly innocuous dolls (cid:1) the
legitimisation or glorification of terrorism?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

The Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism (1), has recently complied with
the harmonisation of criminal law and the establishment of minimum rules relating to the constituent
elements and penalties in the field of terrorism, as required by the Amsterdam Treaty. Article 4.1 obliges
Member States to ensure that inciting or aiding or abetting an offence referred to in articles 1(1),2 and 3, is
made punishable and Article 5 ensures this behaviour is heavily punished. However, these rules only apply
when inciting or abetting refers to the serious acts covered by the Framework Decision which,
furthermore, require an specific terrorist intent.

At present, the Commission is not envisaging the definition of ‘new’ terrorist offences. It must be borne in
mind that the Union’s legislative action must respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/69

In this sense, Recital 10 of the Framework Decision clarifies that ‘nothing in this Framework Decision may
be interpreted as being intended to reduce or restrict fundamental rights or freedoms such as the right to
strike, freedom of assembly, of association or of expression’. The Commission opinion is to be extremely
cautious when proposing to incriminate acts on terrorist grounds, as a very extensive conception, contrary
to the ‘de minimis’ principle, could put fundamental rights at stake.

(1) OJ L 164, 22.6.2002.

(2003/C 161 E/073)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3119/02

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: EU funding of Greek judicial and prison services

(24 October 2002)

Are any European Community funds made available to the Greek authorities in support of the Greek
judicial or prison services?

If so, would the Commission please provide full details?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2002)

The Community does not directly finance the setting up of services such as those mentioned by the
Honourable Member in the Member States.

The Commission has co-financed projects under the cooperation programmes of Title VI of the Treaty on
European Union, aimed at encouraging judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Grotius) and preventing
organised crime (Falcone); a list of these projects is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat General.

Within the Greek Community Support Framework (CSF) 2000-2006,
in particular the Operational
Programme (OP) Information Society measure on ‘Electronic government’ for services to the public (Union
participation: EUR 271 million, or 75 % of the public expenditure of the measure), there is a provision to
support projects in the judicial sector, amongst other sectors. In particular, this measure may co-finance
actions in the field of upgrading the services of the Greek Ministry of Justice such as Judicial Records and
statistical data on criminality.

Although a call for proposals has been made by the Greek authorities, no project proposals have been
received yet by the managing authority of the above-mentioned programme.

(2003/C 161 E/074)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3122/02

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Boycott of European dot-coms in the United States

(30 October 2002)

For about four months United States companies specialising in both Internet and conventional sales and
publicity have been refusing to provide services to European companies selling on-line, in order to prevent
them from selling their products in the United States.

The Spanish company Barrabes.com, as well as French and Danish companies which do a large percentage
of their business in the United States, have seen their sales slump drastically as a result of this boycott.