WRITTEN QUESTION E-0299/03 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Closure of the www.savechechnya.org website in the Russian Federation.
Date: 2003-02-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Internet site, Russia, cooperation policy, freedom of communication, freedom of opinion, law relating to information, non-governmental organisation, war of independence

C 161 E/206

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Employees’ contributions have been increased several times since the adoption of the EU civil service
pension scheme. The last increase dates back to January 1993 and brought the total contribution to
24,75 % (one third to be borne by staff and therefore accounting for 8,25 %). An expert actuarial study
carried out in 1998 showed that this overall contribution rate might prove to be insufficient in the future.
The study also drew attention to the fact that the parameters to be taken into account for calculating the
contribution had not been clearly defined. As a result, the components of the scheme, the actuarial method
to be taken into account, and the parameters to be used (interest rates, mortality table, etc.) had not been
properly identified. Without clear definitions any proposal based on inadequate hypotheses and parameters
can obviously be disputed.

In its reform proposal, the Commission has consequently proposed means of giving greater clarity to the
arrangements by the establishment of an objective procedure aimed at clearly specifying the components
of the scheme and at ensuring the actuarial balance provided for in the Staff Regulations. This procedure is
included in the proposed amendments to be made to the Staff Regulations (Annex XII).

The Honourable Member is invited to note that, in its proposal, the Commission does not advocate any
new actuarial burden-sharing between the staff and the budget. Under the Commission proposal, the staff
will still contribute one third to the financing of the scheme. As soon as an agreement on the parameters
to be taken into account is achieved in the Council, the contribution rate will be adjusted accordingly. It is
envisaged that the new contribution will be implemented from 1 January 2004, and the Commission has
proposed that it be reviewed annually thereafter.

(2003/C 161 E/215)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0299/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Closure of the www.savechechnya.org website in the Russian Federation

On 21 January 2003 the Russian Internet service provider Mastak.Ru decided to close the www.savechech-
nya.org information website of
the Council of Non-Governmental Organisations (CNO). Ms Galina
Borisova, the service provider’s representative, explained Mastak.Ru’s decision as follows: ‘Our company
has always tried to stay outside political questions and your site has an anti-Russian slant, which creates
the site in question, which provided independent
serious problems for us in our work’. However,
information on the humanitarian and political situation in Chechnya and campaigned against the war in
the Caucasian Republic, never had the slightest anti-Russian content. The decision to close the site
represents a violation of the right of users of Russian, Chechen or any other nationality to free and
independent information. It constitutes a new attack on the freedoms and fundamental rights of citizens of
the Russian Federation, a breach of the Russian Federation’s international undertakings and a fresh obstacle
to the freedom of action of the NGOs. It contributes, furthermore, to reinforcing still further the news
blackout on the many abuses of power committed by the Russian military and paramilitary forces in
Chechnya.

What information does the Commission have on this matter? Has the Commission asked the Russian
authorities for an explanation of this latest arbitrary decision violating freedom of thought and speech?
What steps will the Commission take to induce the authorities in the Russian Federation to put an end to
the continual erosion of the fundamental freedoms and civil and political rights of the citizens of the
Russian Federation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

The Commission is aware of reports that a private Russian Internet provider has decided to refuse to host
the Internet sites of the Chechen Committee for National Salvation and the Council of non-governmental
organisations, allegedly for their ‘anti-Russian’ content.

The Commission is, however, not aware that there is evidence of pressure having been brought by the
authorities on the Internet provider to refuse to host the Internet sites in question. It would appear that
this particular matter should be settled between those directly involved.

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/207

intolerance towards
The Commission is, nonetheless, deeply concerned at
freedom of expression and towards minorities (cid:1) in particular Chechens (cid:1) in Russia. It has raised its
concerns with the Russian authorities on numerous occasions and will continue to do so. It has also
devoted considerable technical assistance to promote media independence, for example, with the aim of
training journalists in objective reporting techniques and professional ethics. The Commission plans to
provide further support to the development of independent media in selected regions in Russia, as part of
its efforts to boost the role of Russian civil society.

increasing indications of

The Commission will continue to closely monitor the situation on freedom of expression in Russia.

(2003/C 161 E/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0307/03

by Othmar Karas (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Participation in the Tripartite Social Summit

On 26 June 2002 the Commission presented the Communication entitled ‘The European social dialogue, a
force for innovation and change’, and the proposal for a Council decision establishing a Tripartite Social
Summit for Growth and Employment (1). The Tripartite Summit is intended to replace the Standing
Committee on Employment with the stated aim of enabling the social partners to make their contribution
to the various strands of the Lisbon strategy.

How does the Commission intend to take account of the fact that the Lisbon strategy, which seeks to
integrate economic, social and environmental policy, is setting challenges which cannot necessarily be met
solely by means of the efforts of the old Val Duchesse social partners (UNICE, ETUC and CEEP)?

For what reason does the proposal establishing a Tripartite Social Summit make no provision for
participation by Eurochambres, even though on a number of occasions the European Commission has
drawn attention to the very significant role which the socio-economic partners play in the Lisbon process
and has supported the chambers in their role as managers of change?

For what reason does the proposal make no provision for participation by EuroCommerce, even though
the sector it represents is Europe’s second largest employer?

(1) COM(2002) 341 final.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

The proposal to establish a Tripartite Social Summit on a formal basis, by means of a Council decision,
was adopted by the Commission along with the Communication on European Social Dialogue as a force
for innovation and change on 26 June 2002 (1). It was in response to the ‘Val Duchesse’ interprofessional
social partners’ joint declaration to the Laeken European Council, December 2001.

The Tripartite Social Summit represents the formalisation of an existing arrangement whereby the troika,
the Commission President and a restricted delegation of interprofessional social partners meet on the eve
of the Spring European Council to discuss the social partners’ contribution to the Lisbon strategy. Such
social summits already took place prior to the Spring European Councils of Stockholm (cid:1) March 2001 and
Barcelona (cid:1) March 2002.

The Tripartite Social Summit does not replace the existing processes of tripartite concertation which
extend beyond the Val Duchesse partners, but seeks rather to draw on the discussions in the dialogues on
macroeconomic, employment, social protection, education and training issues. Furthermore, it constitutes
just one of multiple fora for the preparation of the European Council and the follow-up to the Lisbon