WRITTEN QUESTION E-3406/02 by Marco Cappato (NI)and Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission. Case of the Sudanese citizen Dimiana Murad Nashid.
Date: 2002-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sudan, cooperation policy, illegal restraint, position of women, religious discrimination, slavery, women's rights

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/21

The contract was awarded to the economically most advantageous offer, which was defined as the tender
that presented the best ratio of quality to price (i.e. mix of technical and financial elements (cid:1) respectively
with a weight of 70 % and 30 %). The financial evaluation was carried out on the basis of the total prices
of the offers including Fees, Per Diem, Direct Expenses and Reimbursable Expenses.

The winning tenderer was recommended as the best bidder and awarded the contract as per TACIS tender
rules.

AFCon has employed the O’Connor and Company Law Firm to assist them in a claim for compensation.
At Mr O’Connor’s request, a meeting took place on 4 September 2002 between Mr O’Connor and the
Commission to allow both AFCon’s lawyer and the Commission to exchange views about AFCon claims.

As far as the implementation of the project is concerned, the Commission is aware of difficulties arising
from a lack of co-operation from the local partner and the local government. As a result, there has been a
distinct lack of progress in project implementation. The Commission, therefore, has undertaken the
necessary measures to modify the project activities in order to reach the remaining objectives and to
ensure its sustainability.

(2004/C 33 E/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3406/02

by Marco Cappato (NI)
and Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(29 November 2002)

Subject: Case of the Sudanese citizen Dimiana Murad Nashid

On 4 November 2002, the Sudanese daily newspaper ‘Al-Watan’ reported that a Coptic Christian student
had been abducted in the north of Sudan and forced against her will to convert to Islam and to enter into
a forced marriage.

Dimiana Murad Nashid, who was in her first year of studies at Al-Neelain University in Omdurman,
disappeared at the end of October. Dimiana’s friends and colleagues informed her family that a Muslim
man called Ehab had abducted her from the university.

Dimiana’s father, who presented the case to Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom said that he
had been summoned by the court in Kalakla (a small town near Khartoum) to attend his daughter’s
wedding. Also present in court were a religious leader who presented a marriage certificate and claimed to
be the father of the bridegroom, and a lawyer, who submitted a document signed by Dimiana stating that
she had converted to Islam and wanted to marry Ehab.

After meeting with his daughter in the presence of her abductors, Dimiana’s father said that she appeared
to be drugged and that her eyes and lips were swollen. He also said that he was told that if he wanted his
daughter back he would have to convert to Islam.

Has the Commission formally asked the Sudanese Ambassador to clarify this situation? If not, why not? If
so, what answers was it given? What will the Commission do to prompt the Sudanese Government to put
an end to the constant threats to the freedom of non-Muslim men and women in that country?

What action will the Commission take to prevent the widespread violations of the 1927 International
Convention against Slavery, which the Khartoum regime sanctions and itself commits, and what kinds of
political and diplomatic pressure does it intend to exert in order to put an end to these violations of
international law?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2003)

The Commission is not aware of
the events reported by the Honourable Members based on the
information from the Sudanese newspaper ‘Al-Watan’. The Commission will request a report from its
Delegation in Sudan and communicate directly with the Honourable Members.

C 33 E/22

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

including at the 58th
The Union has consistently underlined its opposition to contemporary slavery,
session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The Union also expressed its concern
at incidences of forced labour in the resolution on Sudan, which it introduced at the last CHR.

The Commission is aware of slavery occurring in some Sudanese states. Where possible, it tries to discuss
the issue with the authorities. However, it also acts through support to non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) and civil society. Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement is the basis for the on-going political
dialogue with Sudan, where such topics can be raised by the Community. This issue will be assessed
during the next Troika visit to the Sudan.

The Commission has followed with great interest the work of the International Eminent Persons Group
(IEPG) in the framework of the mission of the United States Presidential Envoy for Peace in the Sudan,
Senator J. Danforth. They were requested to investigate the situation on Slavery, Abduction and Forced
for a better
Servitude in the Sudan. The Commission considers the report as a very useful
understanding of these sensitive matters. Furthermore, as suggested by the IEPG, deeper research and
analysis is needed.

tool

Finally, funding is being considered for projects tackling the issue of trafficking, child labour and slavery.

(2004/C 33 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3415/02

by Harald Ettl (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 2002)

Subject: Notification of the Pfizer-Pharmacia concentration, announcement in OJ C 265, 31.10.2002, p. 2

How closely did the Commission/DG Competition examine whether the Pfizer-Pharmacia concentration
will create or strengthen a dominant position as a result of which effective competition will be significantly
impeded on the common market or in a substantial part of it, in particular in view of the fact that by
taking over Pharmacia Pfizer will become the world’s largest pharmaceuticals company? To what extent
can conditions be imposed with a view to preventing the creation or strengthening of a dominant position
in certain product sectors which would be incompatible with Article 2(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89
(concentration control regulation)?

By means of the concentration Pfizer will secure a dominant position in many product markets which may
result in a worsening of the supply situation for consumers, in the form of a reduced variety of products
and higher prices. How closely did the Commission/DG Competition consider this aspect, and what
conclusions did it come to? What conditions were imposed with a view to preventing such a development?

Did the Commission/DG Competition consider whether the concentration in question is consistent,
pursuant to Article 2(1) of the concentration control regulation, with the need to preserve and develop
effective competition within the common market in view of the structure of all the markets concerned,
given that, as a result of the concentration, some 30 000 to 40 000 jobs will be lost around the world,
including 10 000 in Europe and a third of the existing jobs in Austria?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2003)

When the Commission examines a merger, the aim is always to establish whether the operation will create
or strengthen a dominant position as a result of which effective competition will be significantly impeded
in the common market or in a substantial part of it (Article 2.2 of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89,