WRITTEN QUESTION E-3466/02 by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission. Town twinning.
Date: 2002-12-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, aid system, management, terms for aid, twinning

C 222 E/74

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Does the Council agree that the EU’s human rights dialogue with Iran does not preclude the
2.
possibility of placing the human rights situation in Iran on the agenda in other fora by means of
resolutions? If so, why has it decided not to table any resolutions in the UN General Assembly Third
Committee?

3. What is the human rights dialogue with Iran expecting to achieve, when on the day before an EU
delegation visited Teheran (on 30 September 2002) five people were hanged in Teheran in public? What
impact has this event had on the dialogue between the EU and Iran?

Does the Council agree that the decision to table a resolution at the 59th meeting of the UN Human
4.
Rights Commission in 2003 must not be dependent on the course of the human rights dialogue, but on
the actual human rights situation in Iran? If not, why not?

Reply

(8 May 2003)

1.
The first session of the EU-Iran human rights dialogue, established by the Council’s conclusions of
21 October 2002, took place in Teheran on 16 and 17 December 2002. The format of the session
consisted of a roundtable including members of civil society from both the EU and Iran, and separate
officials’ meetings. The themes addressed in the roundtable were discrimination and torture prevention.
In the officials’ meetings, those themes and all other issues of concern to the EU about the human rights
situation in Iran were addressed. The Council has not yet had the opportunity to assess the results of this
first session of the dialogue, nor to take a position on whether or not the human rights situation in Iran
has in fact deteriorated since October 2002.

2.
In its conclusions of 21 October 2002, the Council reaffirmed its position of principle that the
establishment of a dialogue is without prejudice to the tabling of a resolution at the Third Committee of
the UN General Assembly or the UN CHR. This position is already enshrined in paragraph 9 of the EU’s
Guidelines on Human Rights Dialogues adopted in 2001.

The Council decided on 21 October 2002 not to table a resolution on the human rights situation in Iran
at the 57th session of the UN General Assembly in October/November 2002. The Council took no
decision on 21 October 2002, however, as to whether or not it would table a resolution on Iran at future
sessions of the UN General Assembly or of the UN CHR.

3.
The purpose of the dialogue with Iran is to achieve concrete progress in the situation of human
rights on the ground. The EU human rights expert delegation, which visited Iran on 30 September and
1 October 2002, expressed its concerns to the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs during that visit about
the public executions to which the question refers.

In order to monitor whether the dialogue is achieving concrete progress in the human rights situation in
Iran, the Council will assess the results of the dialogue on a regular basis. The benchmarks by reference to
which progress will be measured refer to all the areas of concern to the EU, including the imposition of
the death penalty.

(2003/C 222 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3466/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Town twinning

What is the Commission doing to rectify the problems applicants are experiencing with the town twinning
grant due to the excessively short period of time between the submission of applications and the phase
period?

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/75

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2003)

The Commission attaches the utmost importance to town twinning and continues to maintain and
improve its support for it.

After consulting the national and regional representatives of the town twinning movement and with their
agreement, a new grant management system with an annual call for proposals broken into several phases,
was introduced in November 2000. It represented a major change in the running of the town twinning
scheme and, as could be expected, entailed the need for a period of adaptation for the beneficiaries.

Conceived as a transitional arrangement, the new system was evaluated by the Commission in close
cooperation with the representatives of
the town twinning movement and the Parliament Culture
the review a simplified system was introduced for 2002. The
Committee. Based on the results of
experience during the year 2002 has been encouraging and the beneficiaries have expressed overall
satisfaction. Consequently, the call for proposal for the year 2003 was based on continuity keeping the
main elements of the current system unchanged.

During the different consultations, representatives of
the town twinning movement have repeatedly
stressed that in view of practices in the field, the time-span between the deadline for submission of the
applications and the beginning of the respective phase of activities should not be too long. However,
experience has shown that one of the difficulties within the current system is that the beneficiaries receive
notice of the Commission’s grant decision relatively late. For this reason, the time-span was extended by
one month for the year 2003.

The Commission will continue to have close dialogue with the interested parties in town twinning area in
order to assess and improve the functioning of the system. The question of a suitable time-span will be
reviewed again in the framework of preparation of the call for proposals for coming years.

(2003/C 222 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3492/02

by Renzo Imbeni (PSE) to the Council

(9 December 2002)

Subject: Adapting the occupation of customs agent in response to EU enlargement

EU enlargement will lead to the abolition of customs formalities relating to trade with the new countries,
which will then be part of the Union. Will the Council say whether or not such abolition will be gradual
and whether or not customs documents will continue to be issued in respect of trade with those countries,
such as the T2 form for goods under the internal Community transit scheme which are transported across
one of the countries concerned?

If there is to be wholesale abolition of customs facilities, would the Council be in favour of a regulation
laying down Community flanking measures for the benefit of customs agents, including special initiatives
additional to the Structural Fund measures?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council confirms that the new Member States will have to implement the acquis on customs issues
from the day of EU Membership.

All acceding States have committed themselves to take the necessary steps in order to transpose and
implement the acquis in this sector well
in advance of accession and to adapt their administrative
capabilities accordingly. Special emphasis will be paid to effective border management, the introduction of
new technologies, customs ethics and cooperation between all relevant services of the administration.