WRITTEN QUESTION E-1388/03 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. 'Accidental' deaths in Italian prisons — the case of Luigi Giusti.
Date: 2003-04-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, competence of the Member States, detention before trial, patient's rights, prison system, prisoner, public order, right to health, rights of the defence

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/111

What plans does the Commission have to put an end to this situation, and within what time frame?

How are users to be protected from the general deterioration of quality service, which is affecting the new
multimedia services in particular?

How are consumers to be compensated for having paid for a service which it then turns out they can
scarcely get the benefit of?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The Commission is not aware of a general network saturation or reduction of the quality of mobile
services.

As the mobile operators are grappling with the economic slowdown since 2000, and trying to roll out
third generation mobile communications (3G) networks and services, new data services are offered via an
upgrade of existing access platforms, such as Generalised Packet Radio Service (GPRS). Quite naturally,
interoperability) which according to the
such innovative services experience initial difficulties (e.g.
observation of the Commission operators are addressing with high priority.

It is the Commission’s policy to encourage network deployment, including the eEurope Action Plan, where
all Member States have been asked to put in place a comprehensive broadband strategy by the end of
2003. In its Communication ‘Electronic Communications: the Road to the Knowledge Economy’ (1), the
Commission presented a number of actions addressing both the roll-out of broadband and 3G networks
and services. The Commission will report at the end of 2003 on the state of deployment of 3G networks,
and provide clarifications on issues of network infrastructure sharing.

In the end, it is for the mobile operators to finance their upgrading of existing, and future, networks, and
guarantee the quality of service of their networks. The success of mobile services leads to limited situations
of locally high usage density (e.g. in so-called hot spots or at certain times of the day). The availability of
the network services is a key feature for operators to compete on. The Commission is therefore confident
that the possibility for customers to change a service provider in case of degrading or poor service quality
is a strong incentive for operators to upgrade their networks in accordance with the demand and the
network load, even more so as the unavailability of services would result in lost revenues.

The Commission has not been made aware of a generalised dissatisfaction of customers concerning the
quality of service of 2G services. If the case may be, the question of compensating consumers falls under
the contractual relation between the consumer and the service provider.

(1) COM(2003) 65 final.

(2004/C 33 E/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1388/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject:

’Accidental’ deaths in Italian prisons (cid:1) the case of Luigi Giusti

On 3 December 2002, Mr Luigi Giusti, aged 58, was arrested and transferred to Poggioreale prison in
Naples under a detention order issued by Naples examining magistrate Giovanna Ceppaluni, at the request
of public prosecutor Francesco Curcio.

C 33 E/112

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

it was known that Mr Giusti was suffering from a life-threatening medical
At the time of his arrest,
condition (severe diabetes which had already caused irreparable damage to the arterial system, including
blindness and cardiovascular accidents affecting the limbs).

On 21 December 2002, the initial defence petition, which clearly drew the attention of the public
prosecutor and examining magistrate to the need for medical examinations to be conducted in order to
take account of
the defendant’s serious medical condition, was dismissed by the court and the
examinations were never performed.

On 27 January 2003, the defence submitted an application for release, accompanied by a request for the
prison hospital file to be made available, to which no response was received.

On 21 February 2003, an application by the defence for the prisoner to be released from custody on
grounds of serious ill-health was rejected by the examining magistrate following a ruling by the public
prosecutor, while no response was given to the request for the hospital file or for improved prison
conditions on grounds of serious ill-health.

On 17 March 2003, according to one of the defence lawyers, the prison authorities sent an urgent fax to
the examining magistrate saying that the prisoner’s state of health had deteriorated and requesting an
urgent transfer to the Cardarelli hospital in Naples (no reply was received).

During the night of 20-21 March 2003, the prisoner suffered acute chest pains, fell out of bed and had to
be carried to the prison infirmary on the shoulders of his son Ottavio, also a prisoner. After being
examined by medical staff, Mr Luigi Giusti was obliged to return to his cell. Two hours later, dying or
perhaps already dead, he was taken to the Loreto Mare hospital.

To date no charges have been brought or investigation warrants issued against magistrates, who were
clearly at fault, or the medical staff of the Poggioreale prison.

There have been an increasing number of cases, moreover, in which the state of health of inmates of
Italian prisons has been ‘misjudged’, both by magistrates and medical staff.

In the light of the above, what measures will the Commission take to protect the basic rights of prisoners?

Would it not be useful to draw up Community legislation laying down minimum standards to protect
prisoners’ rights?

Does it not consider that the serious and repeated violations of prisoners’ rights, particularly in Italy, where
the case described above is merely one example among many, represent a breach of the EU Treaties?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The detention of Mr Luigi Giusti by the Italian authorities must be considered as a question regarding the
maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security. Pursuant to Article 33 of the
Treaty on European Union, it is the Member States, which are responsible for what action should be taken
to maintain law and order and to safeguard their internal security.

As regards possible action by the Commission, the Commission regrets to inform the Honourable Member
that it is not its role to intervene in such matters, which falls entirely within the ambit of the Italian
competent authority.

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/113

It should, however, be noted that the Commission currently is considering the question of pre-trial
detention and alternatives to such detention at a European level. This initiative is based on the Programme
of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters (1) (in
particular measures 9 and 10). A Green Paper on this issue will be published later in 2003.

On 19 February 2003, the Commission also published a Green Paper on Procedural Safeguards for
Suspects and Defendants in Criminal Proceedings throughout the Union (2). The Green Paper on Procedural
Safeguards focuses on the right to legal assistance and representation, the right to a competent, qualified
interpreter and/or translator, proper protection for especially vulnerable categories, consular assistance and
the knowledge of the existence of rights (‘letter of rights’).

(1) OJ C 12, 15.1.2001.
(2) COM(2003) 75 final.

(2004/C 33 E/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1390/03

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject: Application of agreements on dual nationality by certain Länder of the Federal Republic of

Germany

The EU treaty provides for the existence of European citizenship.

On 19 September 2001, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany signed the European
Convention on Nationality of 6 November 1997, and decided to withdraw from the Convention on the
Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and on Military Obligations in Cases of Multiple Nationality of
6 May 1963.

The Act amending the German Nationality Act (Gesetz zur Reform des Staatsangehörigkeitsrechts) of
15 July 1999, which came into force on 1 January 2000, states that the granting of dual nationality to EU
citizens resident in Germany must be subordinate to the principle of reciprocity.

On 25 May 2002, a ministerial decree of the Italian Republic stated that EU citizens may acquire Italian
nationality without forfeiting their own citizenship, and vice versa, thereby fulfilling the conditions of
reciprocity set out in the German legislation.

Following a bilateral agreement between Italy and Germany of 22 December 2002, the arrangement
referred to in Article 87 (2) of the amended German Nationality Act became applicable, making it possible
for Italians living in Germany who satisfy certain conditions to apply for German citizenship without
having to give up their Italian citizenship. The Länder of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg have, however,
interpreted the legislation restrictively, despite the reciprocity requirements that exist between Italy and
Germany, as the Italian measure is not a law, but simply an administrative act.

In light of this information, what steps does the Commission intend to take to safeguard the rights of
Italian citizens resident in these Länder and to standardise the rules governing nationality at European level
in such a way as to resolve at the outset any judicial and political conflict that may arise between Member
States in this area?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission would point out that the issues relating to double nationality and nationality laws raised
by the Honourable Member are matters falling under the competence of Member States. This is confirmed
by the Declaration on nationality of a Member State appended to the Treaty of Maastricht, which states