WRITTEN QUESTION P-1630/03 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Forced sterilisation of Roma women.
Date: 2003-05-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Roma, Slovakia, accession to the European Union, ethnic cleansing, human rights, protection of minorities, right to physical integrity, sterilisation

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/37

in Somalia.
Community co-operation, despite the difficult
In December 2001, the European Union-African, Caribbean and Pacific (EU-ACP) joint Council decided
on a special European Development Fund (EDF) financial allocation (EUR 199 million) to Somalia for the
period 2002-2007. This
from the
Commission’s budget, in particular humanitarian aid (EUR 6 million in 2003).

financial envelope is complemented by yearly contributions

situation, has been constantly present

Based on the EU-ACP Council decision, a first programme (EUR 50 million) was approved by the
Commission in June 2002 and is being implemented while a new rehabilitation programme (estimated
EUR 75 to EUR 100 million) is being appraised and should be submitted to the Commission for approval
by end 2003.

The current Community co-operation in Somalia is defined by the ‘Strategy for special aid to Somalia’
(April 2002). (1) Given the Somali context, flexibility, strict neutrality and contacts at local level have been
key elements for Community intervention. Community programmes are based on the ‘peace dividend
approach’ and imply multi-sectoral capacity delivery, covering the whole spectrum from humanitarian aid
to relief through rehabilitation to development. Given the ‘peace dividend’ approach and the priority given
to contacts at local level, most Community interventions are implemented by European non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and United Nations (UN) Agencies.

Given the prevailing circumstances, trade flows between Somalia and the Union are practically non-
existent.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/csp_rsp/csp_en.cfm

(2004/C 88 E/0040)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1630/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Forced sterilisation of Roma women

With reference to questions E-0575/03 (1) and E-0434/03 (2) by Nelly Maes and Erik Meijer on coerced
sterilisation of Roma women in Slovakia, I am astonished at the answers given.

In the answer to Mr Meijer, the Commission says: The Member of the Commission responsible for
Enlargement has immediately addressed this issue in a letter to Slovak Prime Minister Dzurinda,
underlining that these allegations are a matter of serious concern and if proved to be true, would
constitute a serious breach of human rights.

In its answer to Nelly, the Commission adds the following at phrase the end of the above sentence (cid:1)
‘provided the public authorities have supported, tolerated or not taken proper legal actions in this respect’.

One has to conclude from the above answer that a serious breach of human rights cannot exist unless the
government was aware of it and did not react appropriately.

Reports by the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) provide ample evidence that the government was
aware of this problem, which existed even before the creation of the Slovak State, still exists today and has
been the focus of continuous attention.

Does the Commission recognise that there are serious breaches of human rights in Slovakia and, if so,
what consequences are attached to these violations?

(1) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 55.
(2) See page 12.

C 88 E/38

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission in its responses to earlier written questions on the treatment of the Roma, specifically
questions E-0434/03 by Mr Meijer and E-0575/03 by the Honourable Member, expressed its concern
about allegations that Roma women are being sterilised without or with coerced consent by doctors in
Eastern Slovakia.

The Commission had specifically referred to the public authorities not, as the Honourable Member
concludes, as an indication that ‘a serious breach of human rights cannot exist unless the government was
aware of it’ but in order to indicate that under internal public law, a state indeed can be held accountable
for violations of human rights, if the incriminated actions can be attributed to him. Hence the reference
made in the reply to Written Question E-0575/03. Under international law, a state’s responsibility goes as
far as to provide for legal provisions to punish coerced or forced sterilization and to ensure objective
criminal proceedings.

The Commission has urged the Slovak authorities to carry out the necessary criminal investigations and to
remedy possible discriminatory measures. So far, the criminal investigations are still ongoing and have not
yet confirmed the above stated allegations, which, if proved to be true, would be punishable under Slovak
criminal law. The Commission does not have the right to interfere in ongoing investigations of a sovereign
state and to prejudge its outcome. It will, however, continue to closely monitor this serious issue.

Finally, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that following intense discussions
with the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) involved in reporting about the issue, it is considering to
include a specific Roma health project in its National PHARE Programme 2003 to improve the situation of
the Roma minority in this important sector.

(2004/C 88 E/0041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1665/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject: Kurdish language teaching in Turkey

About ten months ago the Turkish Parliament adopted new legislation which was supposed to allow
private schools to be set up for the teaching of the Kurdish language.

However, the provisions also stipulated that:

(cid:1) private schools which already teach foreign languages cannot teach Kurdish too, i.e. schools must be

set up specifically to teach Kurdish;

(cid:1) Kurdish may be taught only by teachers with a Kurdish language teaching qualification (cid:1) which until
a year ago did not officially exist, and therefore there could not be any schools to qualify teachers to
teach the language!

(cid:1) Foreign teachers cannot be used to teach Kurdish.

This means that it has not been possible to open a Kurdish language school anywhere in Turkey.

Furthermore, the above-mentioned legislation states that access to Kurdish language courses is restricted to
people who already have a full command of
the Turkish language after completing their primary
education. In practice this means only students over 15 years old, and even then not all of them, since
there is a low level of literacy in south-east Turkey.

This is obviously a crude and cynical move designed to fool the Kurds in Turkey and the European Union,
which has requested that Turkey behave in a civilised way.

Will the Commission analyse this information and does it not consider that it should be forceful in telling
the Turkish Government that its attitude makes it impossible for Turkey to join the European Union.