WRITTEN QUESTION E-1443/03 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Twenty year prison sentences for peaceful demonstration in Laos.
Date: 2003-04-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Laos, arrest, cooperation agreement (EU), exchange of information, freedom of expression, fundamental rights, pacifism, ruling

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/143

Under the Commission proposal, only the official concerned will in future be able to have disciplinary
proceedings re-opened.

In practice this would mean that the Appointing Authority’s hands would be tied if it came upon new,
incriminating evidence of misconduct by an official who previously had been cleared and not subject to
any disciplinary measures.

Why has the Commission proposed this change, which would mean that, even in important cases, it would
be unable to take action?

Does the Commission stand by its proposal, or will it change it?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

In the version of the Commission proposal for amendment of the Staff Regulation which the Honourable
Member has apparently seen, the words ‘on its own initiative or’ were inadvertently omitted from the new
Article 25 of Annex IX. The relevant article in the revised Staff Regulations was subsequently corrected.
The text agreed with the Council consequently reflects the current Staff Regulation as follows: ‘Where new
facts supported by relevant evidence come to light, disciplinary proceedings may be re-opened by the
appointing authority on its own initiative or on application by the official concerned’ (1).

(1)

see doc 5752/03 STAT 10 FIN 31 of 6 February 2003 of the Council of the European Union.

(2003/C 280 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1443/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(24 April 2003)

Subject: Twenty year prison sentences for peaceful demonstration in Laos

imprisonment for anti-governmental activities (sic),

According to the 2002 human rights report published on 31 March 2003 by the US State Department,
the five leaders of the ‘26 October Movement’, Thongpaseuth Keuakoun, Khamphouvieng Sisa-At, Seng-
Aloun Phengphanh, Bouavanh Chanmanivong and Keochay, who had been arrested in October 1999 for
organising a peaceful demonstration in Vientiane in support of democracy, have been sentenced to 20
years’
following a trial held in camera, and are
currently incarcerated in Vientiane. Previously, it should be said, the Laotian authorities had provided other
(cid:1) totally contradictory (cid:1) versions of the fate of the five student leaders. For example, after the authorities
of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (LPDR) had denied for two years that the five student leaders had
been arrested, in November 2001 the country’s Foreign Minister, Mr Somsavad Lengsava, told Italian Vice-
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mrs Margherita Boniver, that the students had not yet been tried. Then, in
June 2002, the chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of the LPDR National Assembly told a meeting of
the European Parliament in Strasbourg that they had been sentenced the previous year. On that occasion,
he undertook to produce documentary records of the trial, a commitment which has yet to be honoured,
despite repeated reminders.

Has the Commission expressed to the LPDR authorities its indignation at the severity of the sentences
handed down to the students and at the way in which the whole judicial process was conducted? Has it
expressed its extreme annoyance at the failure to provide it with accurate information? In the light of this
series of particularly serious incidents and bearing in mind the breadth and scale of the European Union’s
cooperation programmes with Laos, does the Commission not think that the cooperation agreement
between the European Union and Laos should be suspended, unless the LPDR authorities give a formal
undertaking to review the trial of the five student leaders without delay?

C 280 E/144

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2003)

The Commission is fully committed to emphasising the need to strengthen respect for civil and political
rights in Laos, including freedom of expression, assembly, association and religion, as expressed in the
Community-Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR) Co-operation Agreement.

The question of the five leaders of the ‘26 October 1999 Movement’ has been raised by the Commission in
bilateral meetings with the Lao Government, as well as in other fora, but so far only limited information
has been provided.

Regarding the question of a possible suspension of the Community-Lao PDR Co-operation Agreement, the
Commission continues to be of the opinion that maintaining a cohesive policy of constructive political
dialogue with the Laotian Government, paired with continued support to the most vulnerable segments of
the Laotian population through Community-assisted development programmes, will be more fruitful than
a confrontational approach.

However, should the political and human rights situation in the country deteriorate to such an extent that
continued Community co-operation with Laos be put into question, the Commission will be prepared to
undertake the necessary steps in order to get an agreement on the appropriate action to take.

(2003/C 280 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1444/03

by Francesco Rutelli (ELDR), Mariotto Segni (UEN), Graham Watson (ELDR),
Enrique Barón Crespo (PSE), Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE), Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE),
Francis Wurtz (GUE/NGL), Teresa Almeida Garrett (PPE-DE), Guido Bodrato (PPE-DE),
Luciano Caveri (ELDR), Luigi Cocilovo (PPE-DE), Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL),
Paolo Costa (ELDR), Luigi De Mita (PPE-DE), Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL),
Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR), Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE), Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE),
Marco Formentini (ELDR), Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE), Florence Kuntz (EDD),
Franco Maríni (PPE-DE), Mario Mastella (PPE-DE), Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE),
Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL), Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE), Giorgio Napolitano (PSE),
Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE), Elena Paciotti (PSE), Giuseppe Pisicchio (PPE-DE),
Giovanni Pittella (PSE), José Pomés Ruiz (PPE-DE), Giovanni Procacci (ELDR),
Giorgio Ruffolo (PSE), Guido Sacconi (PSE), Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR),
Bruno Trentin (PSE) and Gianni Vattimo (PSE) to the Commission

(24 April 2003)

Subject: Freedom and pluralism of information

In view of:

(cid:1) the fact that freedom of information, which is vital in guaranteeing the democratic principles on
which the European Union is based (Article 6(1) TEU) must, particularly in the perspective of the
enlargement, be given a framework of legal guarantees protecting all European citizens and restricting
the establishment of legal or de facto monopolies;

(cid:1) the fact that the specific nature of the information market justifies special protection both in the
context of international negotiations (Doha) and within the European Union’s internal law ‘not only
using economic indicators but also in connection to the respect of fundamental rights’ (paragraph 58
of European Parliament resolution of 15 January 2003);

(cid:1) the need to guarantee respect for pluralism and the accuracy of information provided by the media,

particularly those playing a public service role;

(cid:1) the urgent need to resolve the situations condemned in Parliament’s resolution of 15 January 2003;

(cid:1) the fact that this condemnation is backed by the Council of Europe, which considers that in Italy
‘… the potential conflict of interest (…) is a threat to media pluralism and unless clear safeguards are
in place sets a poor example for young democracies’ (paragraph 12 of Recommendation 1589 of
28 January 2003); and since