WRITTEN QUESTION E-0318/03 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Tunisia — Harassment of the lawyer Mr Abderraouf Ayadi.
Date: 2003-02-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Tunisia, border control, human rights, lawyer, the EU's international role

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/15

(cid:1) decentralised implementation of Structural Fund operations by the Member States should provide
sufficient guarantees as to the details and quality of implementation and to results and the evaluation
thereof;

(cid:1) achievement of such objectives is ensured through the observance of certain principles (programming,
concentration, integration and additionality) which justify the existence of an EU cohesion policy.

Furthermore:

(cid:1) the first year in which the rule on automatic decommitment applied ended on 31 December 2002;

(cid:1) in the case of Italy, only 70-80 % of the expenditure certifications submitted by the regions by the

above date relate to so-called ‘support’ projects (i.e. ones consistent with the programmes).

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions:

(cid:1) For each Italian Objective 1 programme and for each of the Structural Funds, what was the exact
amount of the expenditure certified to the Commission in respect of projects which were not selected
on the basis of a call launched in connection with a RGP or a NGP, and will the expenditure relating
to such projects nonetheless be reimbursed under the ERDF, the ESF, the EAGGF and the FIFG?

(cid:1) What additions to the programming have been amended in order to make expenditure which has
already been disbursed outside the operational programmes retroactively admissible for the sole
purpose of avoiding the rule on automatic decommitment? Is the Commission prepared to accept
such a practice?

(cid:1) Does the Commission intend to ascertain in what way the funds which may be released through the

implementation of ‘consistent’ projects are used? If so, what conditions will it impose?

launched pursuant

(cid:1) Does the regions’ recourse to such a high percentage of projects selected on the basis of calls which
where not
to the measures contained in the programmes adopted by the
Commission not seriously jeopardise the achievement of the development objectives laid down in the
Objective 1 CSF for Italy, and does it not also contravene Community rules on additionality,
partnership, programming and information, in addition to thwarting the objectives themselves and
undermining the cohesion policy?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-0260/03 and P-0261/03
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2004/C 58 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0318/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Tunisia (cid:1) Harassment of the lawyer Mr Abderraouf Ayadi

On 26 January 2003, Mr Abderraouf Ayadi, Secretary-General of the CNLT and Member of the Tunisian
Bar, was ill-treated by the border police on his return from a visit to Paris. He was subjected to a body
search and had all his personal documents (CNLT documents, professional papers and publications) seized
in flagrant breach of current legislation.

C 58 E/16

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

Mr Ayadi had been similarly ill-treated on 9 January 2003 when he left for Paris. Such ill-treatment forms
part of a long catalogue of attacks carried out by the Tunisian authorities on Tunisian judges and lawyers.

What is the Commission’s opinion of the systematic use by the Tunisian authorities of various forms of
intimidation against Tunisian judges and lawyers? What measures has the Commission taken, or will it
take,
is the
to persuade the Tunisian authorities to cease such practices? More generally, what
Commission’s view of the deterioration in the human rights situation in Tunisia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

The Commission has been informed by both the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network and the
National Council of Freedoms in Tunisia (CNLT) of the circumstances surrounding Mr Ayadi’s trips. This
information matches other facts reported by the same sources, concerning intrusions attributed to the
Tunisian police into the offices of prominent members of the Tunisian Bar and the physical intimidation of
these same lawyers.

Tunisian border control is of course strictly the responsibility of the Tunisian authorities. However, should
these controls impinge on civil liberties, it would be a matter for Article 2 of the EU-Tunisia Association
Agreement and the Commission could raise the issue in the relevant partnership fora, after discussion with
the Member States.

In the case in point, because the reported incidents are part of a general downward trend in the human
rights situation, the EU intends to remind the Tunisian authorities of their obligations and the commitment
of the Member States to these fundamental rights and principles. The EU will choose the appropriate time
and place to express its concerns.

(2004/C 58 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0393/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(13 February 2003)

Subject: Foreign sales corporation laws

Is the Commission aware of potential job losses that could be caused by EU retaliatory measures against
the US in the framework of the foreign sales corporation laws dispute? As some of the products potentially
listed for high tariffs are produced in the south-west of England, job losses could result in an Objective 2
area adjacent to an area with Objective 1 status, and therefore one of the poorest regions in the country.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2003)

The Honourable Member raises his concern on the negative effect that any eventual
sanctions on American products would have on businesses established in the South West of England.

imposition of

In that respect, it would be useful to recall the circumstances relating to the World Trade Organisation
(WTO) incompatible Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income (FSC/ETI) legislation which provides
an illegal export tax subsidy to American firms to the tune of roughly USD 4 000 million per year.
In particular, following the Community’s successful challenge of the FSC/ETI legislation before the WTO,
on 30 August 2002 the Community was granted by the WTO the right to impose countermeasures in the