WRITTEN QUESTION E-3647/02 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. UPDF prisoners in Uganda.
Date: 2002-12-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Uganda, democratisation, governance, human rights, political cooperation, prison system, prisoner

C 78 E/350

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0367)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3630/02

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Limit to the number of cigarettes one may take out of Spain

My constituent and his partner were on holiday last May in Spain. At the end, they left from Malaga
airport, where the local Customs said they could not take more than four cartons of cigarettes out of
Spain. A friend in Spain was obliged to come to the airport to collect their remaining 32 cartons of
cigarettes. They were obliged to sign a form in Spanish which they did not understand in order to be able
to catch their plane at the last moment.

Now they have received in the mail a document in Spanish which mentions a figure of EUR 601 and
which they suspect might be a fine.

Is it legal, under EU law and under the principle of free movement of people and goods, for Malaga
Customs to impose a limit on how many local cigarettes a visitor may take out of Spain?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has received complaints relating to
seizure of
tobacco products by Spanish authorities from outbound travellers. The Commission is
investigating these complaints to ensure that Spanish law and practice are in line with Community single
market law and, in particular, with Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such
products (1).

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

(2004/C 78 E/0368)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3647/02

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

(17 December 2002)

Subject: UPDF prisoners in Uganda

As the Commission is aware, the human rights situation in Uganda is worrying.

Is the Commission aware that, since March 2002, the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) have been
holding in Gulu prison 21 people who were involved in the election campaign of an opposition candidate
in the local elections in Gulu?

Is the Commission also aware that on 16 September the UPDF murdered one of these people, Peter Oloya?

Will the Commission take action and bring pressure to bear on the authorities there to secure a lasting
improvement in the human rights situation?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

In the recent years, the European Union has been involved with the Government of Uganda in a strong
political dialogue,
in which respect for human rights and the democratisation process are both high
priorities. This is conducted in the framework of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement in which respect for
human rights, democratic principles, rule of law and good governance are essential elements.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/351

Furthermore, under the 8th European Development Fund (EDF) the Commission is funding a EUR 5 million
programme in support of rule of law, good governance and human rights, for which implementation
started in July 2001. Among the components of this programme are support to the Ugandan Human
Rights Commission for a more comprehensive monitoring and analysis of the human rights situation in
Uganda, support to civil society organisations to increase demand for human rights and rule of law,
support to civic education activities, support for community service as an alternative to prison through
National Community Service, strengthening of the role of parliament as well as support to the Amnesty
Commission for the implementation of the Amnesty Act.

Under the 9th EDF, approximately EUR 18 million will be allocated to support capacity building for good
governance. Two specific programmes are foreseen, one in support of the decentralisation policy and one
in support of the democratisation process and development of a human rights culture. In a separate
programme the Union will provide support to capacity building for non-state actors.

Regarding the specific question on the situation of the UPDF prisoners, the Ugandan Human Rights
Commission (UHRC) has informed the Commission that
the prisoners are now being held in the
Government administered ‘Kigo’ prison on Entebbe Road in Kampala. The prisoners have twice received
visits from the Ugandan Human Rights Commission, according to which some of the prisoners have asked
to be granted amnesty, while others have sought more speedy trials. It appears that so far no formal
accusation has been introduced.

The Commission as well as the Member States represented in Uganda are monitoring the situation and are
satisfied that the prisoners are now being treated according to normal judicial procedures after having been
transferred from army custody.

Regarding the death of one of the prisoners, the Commission has been informed that an Ugandan Member
of Parliament (MP) has filed a complaint on behalf of the family with the courts, the course of which
should be awaited.

(2004/C 78 E/0369)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3769/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: GATS

Can the Commission confirm whether the EC has made any requests of least developed countries relating
to environmental services and, if so, can the Commission give an indication of the target and scope of
these requests?

The EC has listed a horizontal limitation relating to the provision of public services. This is essentially an
‘exemption’ from the rules that applies across all sectors. The limitation reads as follows: ‘In all EC Member
States, services considered as public utilities at a national or local
to public
monopolies or to exclusive rights granted to private operators.’ As potentially the most important issue
facing European services in these negotiations, why did the Commission not refer to, or seek views on, this
limitation in its consultation document? Does the fact that it listed this horizontal limitation indicate that it
does not have confidence that Article 1.3 was sufficiently robust to defend public services; and if it does
think it sufficiently robust, why was the extra horizontal limitation required?

level may be subject

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2003)

The Commission can confirm that the initial requests addressed by the Community to a number of Least
Developed Countries (LDCs) did, in some cases, also cover environmental services. In those cases the LDCs
were invited to ‘to consider taking commitments’ in mode 3 and mode 4 with reference to horizontal
In line with the Community’s
request

intra-corporate transferees (ICTs) and business visitors).

(i.e.