WRITTEN QUESTION E-3829/02 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission. Trade agreements between the EU and Mexico and safeguarding human rights.
Date: 2003-01-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, European Union, Mexico, armed forces, cooperation policy, human rights, illegal restraint, impunity, trade agreement

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/11

This broadcast used hidden cameras to film conversations involving business persons, trade unionists,
teachers, workers and fictitious ‘trainees’, discussing various types of fraud. The images were located
mostly, but not exclusively, in the Madrid and Catalonia regions of Spain.

The conversations made express mention of European Social Fund programmes, and some of the speakers
suggested means of submitting proposals with a view to obtaining irregular benefits, stating that the
controls in place could be easily circumvented. Reference was even made to OLAF’s vulnerability in this
area.

Is the Commission aware of this television broadcast?

Has it verified the allegations made?

Has it taken, or does it intend to take, any action?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2003)

The Commission was not aware of the programme mentioned by the Honourable Member which was
broadcast by the Catalan television channel TV3 on fraud in the use of European Social Fund (ESF)
assistance in Spain.

The Commission is therefore going to ask the Spanish authorities (UAFSE) for their comments and for any
other information which will help to properly evaluate the content of this programme.

Once this information has been received, the Commission will examine the potential impact on the ESF
operational programmes.

(2004/C 78 E/0012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3829/02

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Trade agreements between the EU and Mexico and safeguarding human rights

In recent years, there have been numerous political attacks on or kidnappings of individuals in Mexico.
Several of the kidnappings have allegedly been carried out by military personnel. Nevertheless, in ratifying
the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearances of Persons in June 2001, Mexico expressed
reservations about Article IX of that Convention which stresses that military personnel who have been
involved in or have carried out kidnappings must be tried in a civilian court, without enjoying any form of
privilege.

Will the Commission therefore say what bearing compliance with human rights and the above convention
have on trade agreements between the EU and Mexico? How will the Commission ensure that Mexico
complies with various human rights agreements and conventions and implements them at federal, regional
and local level?

The EU should exert pressure on Mexico to remove any mechanism which guarantees impunity to anyone
who violates any other person’s fundamental rights!

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2003)

The commitment of the Commission to the promotion of human rights forms a central part to all bi-
lateral agreements. The process of safeguarding and ensuring human rights is institutionalised under the
‘democratic clause’ which forms a central part of the Union-Mexico relations governed by the Agreement
on Economic Partnership, Political Co-ordination and Co-operation (Global Agreement), which came into
force on 1 October 2000 and which is founded on three pillars: political, cooperation and trade.

C 78 E/12

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Following article 1 of the Agreement, ‘respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights …
underpins the domestic and external policies or both parties and constitutes an essential element of this
Agreement’. It also contains a ‘fulfilment of obligations’ clause which enables the Commission to take into
account the evolution of human rights in Mexico and the Member States as an essential part of their
relations, and establishes a mechanism for the Parties to react in case of failure to comply with the
objectives laid down in the Agreement.

The institutional framework established in the Agreement is, at present, the forum where an open and
productive political dialogue takes place at all
levels: presidential, ministerial and high ranking civil
servants. This allows the Union to exchange points of view concerning, among other bilateral and
multilateral issues, the evolution of human rights in both parties. The Commission considers that this
arrangement is satisfactory and is not pursuing, at this stage, the adoption of additional measures in this
area.

In September 2002 Mexico ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.
While the Commission commends Mexico’s ratification of this Convention, as it was drawn up by the
Organisation of American States, the Commission has no direct power of enforcement. However, it uses
the existing mechanisms to exchange views, and when necessary, to encourage its partners to respect and
implement at all levels the different human rights related agreements and conventions.

While the Commission is aware of certain levels of impunity and the continuation of some human rights
violations, it is hoped that greater political dialogue and focussed co-operation in this area will ensure that
Mexico’s ongoing struggle to reform is successful.

(2004/C 78 E/0013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0072/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 January 2003)

Subject: The dangers of selling thawed deep-frozen meat as fresh meat and a requirement

to warn

consumers against refreezing it

1.
Is the Commission aware that deep-frozen meat imported into the EU is thawed and sold as fresh, as
was the case with the rabbit meat imported into the Netherlands from China at the beginning of 2002 and
sold in supermarkets around Christmas 2002 which then proved to have decayed?

Is the Dutch Food Inspection Service right to say that it is quite common to import deep-frozen meat

2.
and sell it as fresh without informing buyers of the fact?

3.
Is the Commission aware that the same is true of meat from wild animals which hunters shoot
throughout the year and which is then sold as fresh during the holiday period at the end of the year after
having been frozen for a long period?

4.
Can the Commission confirm that this procedure particularly causes problems if the buyer refreezes
the thawed meat at home with the intention of eating it later, which causes a rapid deterioration in its
quality?

Are there EU Member States where it is now compulsory to indicate on packaging that meat has

5.
already been frozen? If so, which?

6. Will the Commission take measures to ensure that a requirement exists throughout the EU for
vendors of packaged meat to distinguish clearly between meat which has already been stored in a deep-
freeze and meat from freshly slaughtered animals, and to warn buyers against refreezing meat which has
already been frozen?

Source: ‘Rotterdams Dagblad’, 28 December 2002.