WRITTEN QUESTION E-1382/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Consequences of the Copenhagen criteria for suppressing oppositions, restricting free expression of opinion, banning organisations and increasing the prison population.
Date: 2003-04-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union membership, Türkiye, accession criteria, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, linguistic discrimination, political rights

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/27

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the financial network linking the Iraqi regime to the major European
banks referred to by the Honourable Member, including the alleged purchase of prohibited material by
Iraq.

The UN has imposed restrictions on transfers to Iraq through the UN Security Council Resolution 661
legislation and not by
(1990), but these restrictions have been implemented by means of national
Community legislation.

Accordingly, the Commission does not have any power to proceed against Member States if they fail to
apply these restrictions or to take appropriate measures against any organisation (e.g. banks, companies)
which break national laws.

(2004/C 88 E/0029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1382/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject: Consequences of the Copenhagen criteria for suppressing oppositions, restricting free expression of

opinion, banning organisations and increasing the prison population

1.
Does the Commission recall that the Presidency’s conclusions for the June 1993 Copenhagen meeting
of the European Council include (paragraph 7(iii)) the so-called ‘Copenhagen criteria’, which in particular
lay down political criteria to the effect that new Member States of the European Union must have stable
institutions that uphold democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities?

Is it expected that Member States will also continue, after they have acceded, permanently to comply

2.
with those criteria? How does the Commission monitor for such compliance?

3.
Is it compatible with the Copenhagen criteria for a form of stability to be maintained in one or more
Member States, or in parts thereof, by prosecuting the expression of political opinions, making it
impossible for lawful opposition newspapers to be published, banning political and other organisations,
treating new organisations formed to pursue the same objectives as previously banned organisations as
ipso facto illegal, confiscating funds legitimately raised by organisations, making demonstrations against
such measures impossible, or by sharply increasing the number of persons imprisoned on such grounds?

4.
Does the Commission consider it possible that an EU Member State might cease to comply with the
Copenhagen criteria? What, in that event, would be the consequences for its continuing membership of the
EU?

5. What action will the Commission take to prevent one or more EU Member States, old or new, from
lapsing back into forms of government, censorship and criminal law that displayed features of the situation
regrettably still obtaining at the present time in accession-applicant state Turkey, with its high numbers of
persons wrongfully imprisoned, and a ban on movements, publications and the use,
in public, of
historically established regional languages?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2003)

1.
The Copenhagen criteria, as defined in the Presidency’s conclusions of the June 1993 Copenhagen
European Council, are the basis for the Commission’s assessment of each Candidate Country’s progress
towards accession, first in the context of the 1997 Opinions, and subsequently in the framework of the
Commission’s Regular Reports on each country.

C 88 E/28

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Through the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam in May 1999, the political criterion defined
2.
at Copenhagen has become enshrined as a constitutional principle in the Treaty on European Union.
Article 6(1) of the consolidated Treaty on European Union stipulates that ‘The Union is founded on the
principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law,
principles which are common to the Member States.’ It is part of the obligations of Member States to
respect these principles.

Respect of these principles can be assured by the political procedure to this effect laid down within
Article 7. It could be set up at the initiative of the Commission, European Parliament or Member States
and includes prevention mechanisms and sanctions facing the Member State responsible.

The freedom of

3.
thought, of expression and information, and of assembly and association, as
guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(referred to in Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union) and applied through the case law of the
European Court of Human Rights, and as recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union, are fundamental rights. Respect for these fundamental rights constitutes an integral part
of
fundamental rights are also, according to the
jurisprudence of the European court of Justice, part of the legal order of the EC. If a Member State does
not respect them when executing rights and duties under the Treaty the Commission could open an
infringement procedure against the Member State in accordance with Article 226 EC.

the Copenhagen political criteria. More generally,

If a Member State were to stop respecting the principles stated in Article 6, paragraph 1, the

4.
Commission would assume its role as laid out in point 2.

In accordance with Article 7 of the Treaty on the European Union, it is up to the Council to decide upon
the measures to be laid down for the Member State incriminated. Suspension of voting rights of the
governmental representative of that Member State in the midst of the Council could be one of these
consequences. These measures cannot lead to this Member State’s exclusion as such a perspective does not
exist within the Union’s institutional system.

The reply to this last question ensues from the response given to the Honourable Member under

5.
questions 2 and 4.

(2004/C 88 E/0030)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1384/03

by Gian Gobbo (NI) to the Commission

(8 April 2003)

Subject: Turkish occupation of Iraqi Kurdistan

Following the outbreak of war in Iraq, Turkey has announced its intention of sending troops to occupy a
20-kilometre zone inside Iraqi Kurdistan, which enjoys semi-autonomous status. The NATO authorities
have agreed to this decision. This military occupation (cid:1) ostensibly on humanitarian grounds (cid:1) is opposed
by the Kurdish population and its political representatives, who have clearly rejected it on several
occasions and plan to use armed resistance.

What is the Commission’s position on what is yet another show of force by Turkey?

Could the presence of Turkish troops in Kurdistan not be a prelude to an annexation of territory there?

Does the Commission not think that such behaviour on the part of Turkey is incompatible with its status
of an applicant country for accession to the EU?