WRITTEN QUESTION E-0002/03 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Condemnation of Mr Nguyen Khac Toan.
Date: 2003-01-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Viet Nam, cooperation policy, freedom of expression, political prisoner, political violence, public safety, right to justice

C 280 E/34

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

The Finnish competition authority has informed the Commission that, so far, it has not received any
formal complaints in relation to this matter. However, it has assured the Commission that it will continue
to monitor the situation closely, also in light of the forthcoming entering into force of the amended
Finnish tax regulation, which should improve the situation for parallel importers.

The Commission is not aware of any similar practices in other Member States.

(2003/C 280 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0002/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(16 January 2003)

Subject: Condemnation of Mr Nguyen Khac Toan

Mr Nguyen Khac Toan, 47, was sentenced on December 20, 2002 to 12 years in prison and three years’
probationary detention by the People’s Court in Hanoi in a trial which lasted less than one day. He was
charged with ‘espionage’ (Art. 80 of the Criminal Code). The Communist Party’s official mouthpiece ‘Nhan
Dan’ (The People) stated that he had ‘slandered and denigrated the executives of the Party and State’ by
providing information to ‘exiled reactionaries’ overseas. The trial was closed to the public. His lawyer was
only able to meet his client twice before the trial (on 16 and 19 December), and was not allowed to speak
to him in private. Born in Hanoi in 1955, he was formerly a soldier in the North Vietnamese Army and he
is presently a businessman. Over the past two years, following demonstrations in Hanoi staged by farmers
protesting against state confiscation of land, he had helped farmers’ representatives to draft petitions to the
National Assembly. He had also imparted information on these demonstrations via the Internet. He was
arrested on 8 January. Police searched his home and confiscated several documents. He was detained in the
notorious B 14 (Thanh Liet) prison. This extremely harsh sentence against Nguyen Khac Toan is one more
episode in a new crackdown against dissenting voices in Vietnam. Le Chi Quang was sentenced to four
years in prison on 8 November 2002. Dr Pham Hong Son, journalist Nguyen Vu Binh and professor Vu
Ngoc Binh are also currently detained for using the Internet to call for peaceful political reforms. Vietnam
has recently stepped up restrictions on freedom of expression and the use of the Internet. The UN Human
Rights Committee in Geneva recently criticized these legal restrictions in their review of Vietnam’s
implementation of
in July 2002. The UN
Committee also criticised Vietnam’s loosely-worded national security legislation, including offences such as
‘espionage’, which criminalises activities that are perfectly legal under international law.

the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Is the Commission informed about the condemnation of Mr Nguyen Khac Toan? Has the Commission
formally asked to be allowed to attend the trial? What is the Commission’s evaluation of this intensified
repression against democracy activists in Vietnam and does the Commission consider that
this is
compatible with the strengthening of its cooperation policy with this country?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

The Commission is aware of the trial and condemnation of Mr Nguen Khac Toan. The Commission’s
Delegation in Vietnam, together with the Diplomatic Missions of the Member States, follows closely the
human rights situation in Vietnam, including the cases of Mr Toan as well as of the other persons of
concern mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Commission did not request to be present at the trial of Mr Toan, nor was it informed in advance of
its date and place. The trial of Mr Toan, as correctly mentioned by the Honourable Member, like other
trials of
the same kind against dissidents, has been closed to the public as well as to diplomatic
representatives.

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/35

The situation of freedom of expression of opinion in Vietnam has not improved during 2002. On several
occasions, most recently in the joint Union declaration for the Consultative Group meeting in Hanoi in
December 2002, the Commission and the Member States have encouraged the government of Vietnam to
create a legal framework for a supportive environment to allow the development of a strengthened civil
society, from which Vietnam would greatly benefit.

The Commission’s policy towards Vietnam is to encourage and support continued progress on human
rights and democratisation, and to raise concerns where abuses occur or where a deterioration in the
situation becomes evident. This happens through monthly meetings of the Union’s ‘Politics and Human
Rights Group’, monthly Troika meetings with the Vietnamese government as well as ad-hoc missions (i.e.
to the Central Highlands) and through joint Union statements at, for example, the Consultative Group
meeting.

(2003/C 280 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0060/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(22 January 2003)

Subject: Rejection by the Council of the European Parliament and Commission proposal concerning the
establishment of a COPE fund from which to pay compensation for pollution caused by oil spills

The disaster caused by the sinking of the Prestige off the coast of Galicia further emphasises the political
seriousness of the Council’s rejection of the European Parliament and Commission proposal concerning the
establishment of a COPE fund to pay compensation for pollution caused by oil spills. The Copenhagen
European Council (cid:1) which was attended by the Spanish Prime Minister, Mr Aznar (cid:1) took the same view
of the matter even as seamen and volunteers were trying to clear the crude oil with their bare hands and it
opted once again (contrary to the interests of European society as a whole and, in particular, to Galicia’s
specific interests) to pass the decision on to the International Maritime Organisation. What reasons lie
behind this decision, which is incomprehensible to the general public?

Reply

(21 July 2003)

It is not true to say that the Council has rejected the Commission proposal concerning the establishment
of a COPE fund.

In the aftermath of the ERIKA incident, there was general agreement, as brought to expression in the
December 2000 Council conclusions, for considering that the level of compensation for oil pollution
damage offered by the existing liability and compensation regime was not sufficient. The Commission
consequently issued, in the framework of the ‘ERIKA II’ package, a proposal aiming at creating an EU
complementary compensation fund.

The April 2001 Council (Transport/Telecom) considered a common approach in the IMO framework
preferable as the best way to achieve the goal set up in the earlier mentioned December 2000 Council
conclusions, i.e. ‘ensure a proper and, as far as possible, global regime for liability and compensation in
cases of pollution damage resulting from contamination by petroleum products and other noxious and
hazardous substances transported by ships’. The common approach underlined that ‘an agreement within
the IMO should be reached as soon as possible, preferably by 2003’.

Good progress has been done on the subject in the IMO framework and a Diplomatic Conference is
scheduled on the matter for May 2003.