WRITTEN QUESTION E-3446/02 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council. EU-Russia summit.
Date: 2002-12-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union, Russia, censorship, information profession, professional ethics, public statement, racism, summit meeting

C 222 E/72

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

In addition, the Council would inform the Honourable Member that at its meeting on 19 December 2002
it authorised the Director of Europol to conclude the draft Supplemental Agreement between the United
States of America and Europol on the exchange of personal data and related information and to exchange
the Letters relating to the Supplemental Agreement.

(1) OJ C 88, 30.3.1999, p. 1.

(2003/C 222 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3444/02

by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Council

(3 December 2002)

Subject: Aggressive advertising in the Member States of the European Union

In order to attract the attention of the ‘targeted’ public, but without considering the harmful effects on
young people, some businesses do not hesitate to display advertising material containing obscene images
in the streets of European towns. Vulgar posters displayed in public places (at bus-stops, entrances to the
underground, etc) are becoming more and more common each year.

Does this mean that in order to sell products all means are acceptable and everything is allowed?

What ethical standards govern advertising in the various EU Member States?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council understands the Honourable Member’s anxiety to defend the European public’s interests with
regard to the definition of ethical advertising standards. Nevertheless, advertising ethics fall within the
Member States’ sphere of competence. The Council does not have any information on the standards
applicable in each Member State.

With regard to Community competence and in accordance with Article 153 of the Treaty, and with a view
to consumer protection, the Community ‘shall contribute to protecting the health, safety and economic
interests of consumers, as well as to promoting their right to information, education and to organise
themselves in order to safeguard their interests.’

In any event, the Council cannot act in the absence of a relevant Commission proposal. No such proposal
has been submitted to the Council to date.

(2003/C 222 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3446/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(6 December 2002)

Subject: EU-Russia summit

At the last EU-Russia summit held in Brussels on 11 November last the Council did not, as is usual, use its
own interpreters to translate from Russian into the Community languages what was said by the visitors,
namely the President and delegation from the Russian Federation. Strangely, interpretation from and into
Russian was provided by the visitors’ interpreters. Furthermore, at the press conference held at the end of
the summit, President Putin addressed blatantly racist, offensive and even threatening remarks to an EU
journalist, saying ‘if you want to become an Islamic radical and have yourself circumcised, I invite you to
come to Moscow. We have a multi-denominational country and there are specialists in this field too.
I would recommend that the surgeon ensures that you’ll have nothing growing back afterwards’. None of
this was translated by the Russian interpreters and was not made public in Europe until after it was
reported by the Russian media.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/73

Since, according to an established tradition of diplomacy in both the Member States and the Union
institutions, interpretation into the language or languages of the host country or institution is provided by
its own staff, a fortiori at meetings as important as this one, what induced the Council to infringe this
sacrosanct and sound rule governing international relations? Furthermore, has the Council made an official
complaint to the Russian authorities and the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC)
asking them to condemn this blatant violation of ethical rules by the Russian interpreters, in particular the
rule according to which interpreters should translate what is said in its entirety? Finally, what conclusions
does the Council draw regarding the racist, offensive and even threatening nature of the remarks made by
the President of the Russian Federation at the press conference in Brussels on 11 November last?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council would point out to the Honourable Member that the EU-Russia Summit was held within the
Council premises in exceptional circumstances, the Presidency having made a late switch of the event from
Copenhagen to Brussels.

With regard to interpretation, the practice followed by the Council at Council meetings is for simultaneous
interpretation to be assured solely by interpreters from the Joint Interpreting and Conference Service (SCIC)
in order to guarantee quality. This practice is normally followed by respective Presidencies for the
organisation of high level meetings, such as bilateral summits between the EU and third countries.
However, this is not a sacrosanct rule and, in exceptional circumstances, the Presidency has on occasion
accepted, after consulting SCIC, that simultaneous interpretation into an other language be provided by the
visiting delegation.

At
the recent EU-Russia summit, simultaneous interpretation into Russian was provided by SCIC’s
interpreters and the Russian delegation provided interpretation into English at the request of President
Putin.

The same interpreters accordingly provided simultaneous interpreting of President Putin’s statement at the
press conference which concluded the Summit. As far as the standard of interpretation during the summit
is concerned, the Council has made no complaint either to the Russian authorities or the International
Association of Conference Interpreters.

It is, however, not the policy of the Council to comment on statements to the press made by visiting
Heads of State.

(2003/C 222 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3447/02

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Council

(6 December 2002)

Subject: Human rights situation in Iran (cid:1) resolution in the UN General Assembly Third Committee

On 21 October 2002 there was a discussion in the Council (for General Affairs and External Relations) on
the human rights situation in Iran and the Union’s position on this subject. A central issue was how to
reconcile the possible tabling by the EU of a resolution on Iran in the UN General Assembly Third
Committee with the human rights dialogue agreed with Iran as part of a package including negotiations on
a trade and cooperation agreement. It was eventually agreed that the EU would not table a resolution on
Iran in the Third Committee this year and would make any follow-up action (for instance at the Human
Rights Commission in Geneva) partly dependent on the course of the planned dialogue with Iran.

Does the Council agree that the human rights situation in Iran has deteriorated in the period since

1.
then?