WRITTEN QUESTION E-3662/02 by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Amendment of WHA Agreement 12-40 between the WHO and the IAEA.
Date: 2002-12-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: International Atomic Energy Agency, World Health Organisation, international convention, resolution

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/99

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2003)

The Honourable Member refers to an agreement between an Italian broadcaster (La7) and an Italian
advertisement agent (Cairo Communications) concerning the Italian advertising market.

The Commission is not aware of any complaints regarding the above-mentioned agreement between Cairo
Communications and La7, nor has this agreement been notified to the Commission. Furthermore, the
Commission has no element, at the present stage, to evaluate whether the agreement in question would be
capable to appreciably affect the trade between Member states and, therefore, to come within the scope of
Community Competition rules.

The Honourable Member also refers to Mediaset/Publitalia’s position on the Italian television and
advertisement markets. In this respect, the Commission has no information which could support the
conclusion that the agreement between Cairo communications and TV La 7 could, due to certain alleged
links between the parties to this agreement and Publitalia, lead to a possible strengthening of the latter’s
position on the above-mentioned markets.

(2003/C 222 E/117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3662/02

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Amendment of WHA Agreement 12-40 between the WHO and the IAEA

On 28 May 1959 the 12th Assembly of the World Health Organisation adopted Resolution WHA 12-40
covering an agreement linking the WHO to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The agreement
stipulated that WHO work and programmes deemed to be related to the IAEA’s sphere of activities would
be subject to the control and approval of the latter organisation and that the procedures for and conduct
of such work and programmes would be subject to a negotiated consensus (Article 1(3)).

The same article set out the explicit and partisan aims of the IAEA, stating that its main responsibility is to
encourage, assist and coordinate around the world research into, and the development and practical use of,
atomic energy for peaceful purposes. In the WHO Constitution which was ratified in July 1946 and which
entered into force on 7 April 1947, in accordance with the United Nations Charter the contracting parties
adopted the following principle as basic to the security of all peoples:
‘Informed opinion and active
cooperation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of
the people. Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples’. In the report which it
submitted to the WHO in 1958, the study group on the mental health issues raised by the use of atomic
energy stated that the most satisfactory solution for the future peaceful use of atomic energy would be for
a new generation that had learned to accept ignorance and uncertainty as a fact of life to emerge.

Is the Council not concerned at this flagrant collusion between two international institutions, with WHO
reports being subjected to censure by the IAEA, which is intrinsically pro-nuclear?

Is it not alarmed at the implications which the compromises clearly made by the WHO have for the
objectivity and accuracy of EU studies carried out in preparation for its programmes and action in the field
of nuclear energy and related diseases (brought about by the use of depleted uranium in Iraq and the FYR
or the effects of Chernobyl in Eastern Europe)?

Given this affront to the transparency and independence of the WHO, which is borne out by the fact that
it took ten years to organise on its own a conference on the Chernobyl disaster and then failed to publish
the report of the proceedings, should the Council not denounce the collusion brought about by some
provisions of the agreement?

Will the Council undertake, within the framework of its bilateral dialogue with these two international
institutions, to demand the amendment of WHA Agreement 12-40 (Article 1(3), under which each party is
to provide the other with information), as provided for in Article 13 thereof?

C 222 E/100

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that it has not discussed the points raised in her
question.

(2003/C 222 E/118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3729/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Legal status in the EU of members of the Iranian opposition in exile who are campaigning for

pluralist democracy and against theocratic dictatorship

1.
Is the Council aware that a young generation in Iran is increasingly protesting against the fact that
the elected parliament and the elected president have no real authority in the state and that power over the
army, the police, the courts, censorship and citizens’ freedoms is in the hands of a conservative, theocratic
elite which cannot be voted out of office and which imprisons or kills opponents?

2.
Given that Iran cannot be described as a democracy governed by the rule of law, does the Council
regard it as right that organisations which are the most vocal in calling for change, and are therefore
banned in Iran, are treated as terrorist organisations outside Iran?

3.
Is the Council coming under pressure from the Iranian authorities to declare as a terrorist
organisation the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an umbrella organisation set up in 1981
and now based in Paris, which, as a 560-member parliament in exile, brings together people of various
faiths, ethnic origins and political convictions and campaigns for a democratic, secular and pluralist Iran,
equality between women and men, self-determination for ethnic minorities and free elections under UN
supervision?

4.
Is the Council aware of how much backing there is for calls to support the Iranian democratic
opposition in exile and for the legalisation of such organisations in the EU, such as the call made on
18 July 2002 by 453 Members of both Houses of the UK Parliament, the call made by the Danish
Parliament on 14 November 2002 for dialogue with relevant opposition groups in Iran with a view to
fostering the reform process, and the support which has now been given by the parliaments of Italy,
Belgium and Luxembourg and by MPs in France, Germany and Sweden for the legalisation of the
Mujahedin Khalq (PMOI), an opposition movement set up in 1965 and which is now the largest and most
active within the NCRI?

5.
Is the Council prepared to offer the Mujahedin Khalq immediate guarantees that it can operate as a
fully legal organisation, that it will not be suspected of plotting terrorist acts on EU territory and that no
restrictions will therefore be imposed on its peaceful activities and fundraising?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council decided on 17 June 2002 to deepen relations between the EU and Iran. The Council stressed
that it wished to support the reformist forces in Iran. When taking its decision, the Council emphasised
that enhanced trade and co-operation with Iran would be linked to significant, positive developments in a
number of areas of concern to the EU, such as human rights, counter-terrorism, proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction and the Middle East Peace Process. The Council also said that it would evaluate
progress in these areas. The EU’s policy vis-à-vis Iran therefore has a political context within which the EU
has certain expectations for the development of reforms in Iran.