WRITTEN QUESTION E-0573/03 by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Turkey and the Ocalan case.
Date: 2003-02-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, European Convention on Human Rights, Kurdistan question, Türkiye, accession criteria, accession to the European Union, political cooperation, rights of the defence

C 51 E/32

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

(2004/C 51 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0553/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject: Breach of EC’s competition rules

I have been informed that in the ex-officio case 37926 (Sun/ETSI) with regards to the ETSI GSM 03.19
standard the European Commission was concerned that there could have been a breach of the EC’s
competition rules due to: (a) the late disclosure and identification by Sun of its claimed essential intellectual
property rights (IPR) in this standard; and (b) the fact that from a technical perspective Sun’s claimed
essential IPR were not in fact essential.

In that case there might have been a restriction of competition in the sense of Article 81 of the EC Treaty
because of:

(cid:1) the standardisation agreement’s effect of excluding actual or potential competitors from the market as

a result of non-transparent procedures; and

(cid:1) because of the non-indispensability of the standardisation agreement in the way that it had been

formulated.

I warmly welcome the conclusions that have been adopted by the European Commission and would like to
know what the Commission regards as necessary to ensure that similar problems such as those that have
occurred with GSM 03.19 do not occur in the future.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2003)

The Commission can confirm that in the case to which the Honourable Member refers, it has highlighted
concerns to ETSI about the formulation of the ETSI GSM 03.19 standard.

More specifically, the Commission was concerned that an artificial barrier to entry in the market for GSM
smart cards could have been erected as a result of:

(i)

(ii)

the late disclosure and identification of claimed essential
standard; and

intellectual property rights (IPR)

in the

the apparent non-essentiality of the claimed essential IPR. The Commission is monitoring the follow-
up of the situation in this ongoing case.

In general, the Commission believes that it should not be its role to interfere in the nature of the standard-
setting process. In hi-tech markets especially, standards, if properly developed, play a positive role in
promoting the efficient promulgation of new technologies in a manner that is most beneficial to the
consumer and the economy in general. However,
the Commission also believes that there may be
exceptional cases where the disclosure and identification of claimed essential IPR in a standard after that
standard has been agreed could constitute an artificial barrier to entry, because potentially competing
technologies may be unfairly precluded from getting to the market. The Commission therefore believes
that standard-setting bodies should devise their internal rules in such a way that these types of situations
cannot occur. In this respect, the Commission understands that ETSI is undertaking a review of the
implementation of its own IPR rules, and stresses the need for this review to deliver effective results.

(2004/C 51 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0573/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(28 February 2003)

Subject: Turkey and the ‘Ocalan case’

For some weeks now the leader of the former PKK, Abdullah Ocalan, has been unable to receive visits
from his defence lawyers or anyone else. This arbitrary decision on the part of the Turkish Government
constitutes a flagrant violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the ‘political criteria’ for
enlargement identified by the Copenhagen European Council.

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/33

What steps does the Greek presidency of the Council intend to take to ensure that Ocalan is guaranteed
the basic right of defence? Does the Council not consider that, since Ocalan’s sentence of death has been
commuted, Brussels should now exert pressure on the government in Ankara to ensure that Ocalan is
granted freedom and that negotiations are launched with a view to a political solution to the ‘Kurdish
question’?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Council is closely watching the situation. After a period during which Mr Abdullah Ocalan had

1.
indeed been unable to receive visits, he has recently received visits from his lawyers and his brother.

2.
In a judgment of 12 March 2003 (Ocalan v. Turkey (cid:1) application no 46221/99) concerning
Mr Abdullah Ocalan’s complaints relating to his detention, the trial and the sentence (death penalty)
pronounced against him, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found, with regard to the right to a
fair trial that Mr Abdullah Ocalan’s right had been violated and that the imposition of the death sentence
following an unfair trial had amounted to inhuman treatment. It did not, however, uphold the complaints
regarding the legality of his arrest and of the conditions of his detention on the island of Irmali in the light
of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Council
will closely monitor the follow-up to the Court’s judgment, which may be subject to appeal by either
party.

3.
In the context of political dialogue with Turkey and under the Accession Partnership, the Council
constantly insists on compliance with the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and in particular the judgments of the ECHR. As regards the wider aspects of the ‘Kurdish
question’ raised by the Honourable Member, the Council expects Turkey to continue to work towards
guaranteeing human rights (cid:1) including cultural rights (cid:1) and fundamental freedoms for all citizens
irrespective of their origin, and promoting economic, social and cultural development in the South-East in
particular.

On 26 March, the Commission adopted a revised Accession Partnership setting priorities for Turkey

4.
in meeting the pertinent political criteria, which the Council agreed on 14 April.

(2004/C 51 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0639/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(4 March 2003)

Subject: Angola (cid:1) Cabinda (cid:1) human rights

In December 2002 a report was presented in Luanda drawing attention to serious violations of human
rights in the Angolan province of Cabinda. This report was produced by Angolan NGOs. Several of its
claims have since been confirmed from other sources (notably Amnesty International) and relayed in the
international press. The report accuses both the Angolan military and the pro-independence FLEC.

The long-standing conflict between the Angolan government and UNITA has recently subsided, bringing in
its wake the return of peace.

Angola is now endeavouring to consolidate democracy in a framework of national reconciliation and
freedom, without which it will be impossible to rebuild the nation or, by the same token, promote the
welfare of its inhabitants. However, the problem of Cabinda remains unsolved, as does the associated
armed conflict; meanwhile, all initiatives are to be welcomed if they contribute to the broadening and
deepening of the framework for peace and reconstruction and are based on a full commitment to
respecting fundamental human rights.