WRITTEN QUESTION E-1698/03 by Marco Cappato (NI) and Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Council. Closure of the Sudanese daily Khartoum Monitor.
Date: 2003-05-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Sudan, cessation of trading, democratisation, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, human rights, newspaper, settlement of disputes

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/127

The Council Decision does not contain any provisions for checking the exactness and veracity of the
amounts claimed by the Bank.

Does the Council agree that such checks should be performed by the European Court of Auditors?

(1) OJ L 99, 17.4.2003, p. 45.

Reply

(7 October 2003)

The Council decision of April 8, 2003 (1) details the level of the remuneration for the management of

1.
the Investment Facility.

This Council decision stipulates that each year (by June 30) the Bank presents accounts to the Investment
Facility Committee. These accounts comprise details on the actual costs incurred as well as the fees
recovered from clients during the preceding year in relation to the management of the Investment Facility.

These accounts will have been audited before submission to the Investment Facility Committee for
discussion and approval.

The European Court of Auditors has auditing rights for the Investment Facility based on the Internal
2.
Agreement which defines the guiding principles for the audit and the discharge of the Investment Facility
managed by the Bank.

It stipulates:

(cid:1) in Article 32(5) that audit and discharge for the Investment Facility follow procedures laid down by

the Statute of the Bank, and;

(cid:1) in Article 32(2) that the conditions under which the European Court of Auditors will exercise its

power are to be laid down in the Financial Regulation.

The Financial Regulation of March 27, 2003 (2) stipulates in Article 112 and in Article 119(2) that:

(cid:1) audit and discharge for the Investment Facility follow procedures laid down by the Statute of the Bank

i.e. the Bank’s Audit Committee;

(cid:1) the discharge for the Investment Facility will be given by the Bank’s statutory organs i.e. the Board of

Governors on the basis of the recommendation of the Audit Committee;

(cid:1) detailed rules for auditing by the European Court of Auditors will be set out in the Tripartite

Agreement.

3.
The European Court of Auditors could proceed, if it so wished, with an audit on the regularity of the
remuneration payment to the Bank from the re-flows of risk capital operations or special loans under
successive Lomé- mandates or from those of the Investment Facility.

(1) OJ L 99, 17.4.2003, p. 45.
(2) OJ L 83, 1.4.2003, p. 1.

(2004/C 51 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1698/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) and Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Council

Subject: Closure of the Sudanese daily ‘Khartoum Monitor’

(22 May 2003)

According to the press agency MISNA, on 9 May the Sudanese authorities ordered the closure of the
‘Khartoum Monitor’, an English-language daily which the government had already found provocative
because of a number of its articles on religion and the civil war in the south of the country. According to
initial reports, backed up by the forces of law and order which closed the newspaper office, the action was

C 51 E/128

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

taken because fines imposed earlier had not been paid. The ‘Khartoum Monitor’ itself reports that the fines
had in fact been partially cancelled following an appeal court sentence, whilst a small fine upheld by the
court verdict had been duly paid. Some months ago Nhial Bol, the editor of the newspaper, was sentenced
to six months’
for ‘spreading false
information’ in an article accusing the government of the President Omar el Bashir of involvement in the
‘slave-trade’ in Sudan.

(or the payment of a fine of about USD 2 000)

imprisonment

Does the Council know about the repeated and systematic threats to freedom of expression on the part of
the Sudanese authorities inherent in the state of emergency, which has been in force since 1999?

What diplomatic pressure will it exert on the Sudanese authorities to ensure that the ‘Khartoum Monitor’
reopens immediately?

Does not the Council intend to make compliance with the agreement with the Khartoum government
initialled on 10 December last year (cid:1) which envisages the use of an initial fund designed for the technical
preparation of cooperation programmes, which are to be resumed as soon as a definitive peace accord is
initialled (cid:1) dependent on the immediate lifting of the state of emergency?

Reply

(7 October 2003)

The Council is aware of the closure of the English-language daily ‘Khartoum Monitor’ in May this year and
of the measures taken against the editor of this newspaper.

In the framework of the EU dialogue with the Sudan, Head of Missions in Khartoum meet regularly with
government representatives to discuss open issues and to address in particular the EU concerns on
incidents such as the closure of the ‘Khartoum Monitor’. In these dialogue meetings the EU emphasises that
loses all credibility vis-à-vis the public and the international
the Government of
community if it is not complying with the basic principles of democratic and human rights. Continued
violation of these principles would have negative consequences also in the peace talks. The EU is keeping
up its pressure on the GoS to comply with the benchmarks agreed in December 2002 including freedom
of expression.

the Sudan (GoS)

Following the signature of the Machakos agreement in July last year the priority for the EU in its relations
with the Sudan has been the promotion of a comprehensive peace settlement which would also be
conducive to the enhancement of democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights and good governance.
The improvement and respect of these basic principles are a pre-condition for the normalisation of EU (cid:1)
Sudanese relations including resumption of cooperation. The lifting of the state of emergency is part of the
benchmarks package and compliance with it would be assessed in that context (1).

(1) See reply to Written Questions E-3892/02 and E-0077/03 by Marco Cappato on the same question linked to the

issue of death penalty in the Sudan.

(2004/C 51 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1699/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 May 2003)

Subject: Ending of overnight motorail and other holiday train services operated by foreign railways as a

result of high tariffs for the shared use of track

1.
Can the Commission confirm that in some EU Member States very high fees are now charged for the
use of the national railways’ infrastructure by passenger trains operated by foreign companies and that
these fees are much higher than those previously charged and probably also much higher than those
charged to domestic train companies?