WRITTEN QUESTION E-1990/03 by Marco Cappato (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Emma Bonino (NI),Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Olivier Dupuis (NI), Marco Pannella (NI)and Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Exercising the right to religious freedom.
Date: 2003-06-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cambodia, India, cooperation policy, foreign policy, freedom of religious beliefs, human rights, the EU's international role

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/241

The information advanced by the Honourable Member is not enough to enable the Commission to assess
whether the introduction of a ban on smoking throughout the hotel, restaurant and catering sector in the
Netherlands would impair the operation of the single market. The Commission will continue to monitor
the development of tobacco control policies in line with the requirements of the Treaties.

(1) OJ L 22, 25.1.2003.
(2) Smoke Free Workplaces: Improving the Health and Well-Being of People at Work. European Status Report 2001,
co-ordinated by Inge van den Borne and Tamara Raaijmakers (Dutch Center for Workplace Health Promotion) for
ENSP, 2001M Scollo, A Lal, A Hyland, and S Glantz, Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of
smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. Tob. Control 2003; 12: 13-20.

(2004/C 11 E/269)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1990/03

by Marco Cappato (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Emma Bonino (NI),
Gianfranco Dell’Alba (NI), Olivier Dupuis (NI), Marco Pannella (NI)
and Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Subject: Exercising the right to religious freedom

Two events have been brought to the Commission’s attention in recent months which, in quite different
contexts and ways, have seriously endangered the exercise of the right to religious freedom: the adoption
by the Cambodian Ministry for Religious Affairs of a Directive banning all public proselytising activities,
and the approval by the Legislative Assembly of the Indian state of Gujarat of a Freedom of Religion Bill,
which allows the possibility of religious conversion only when authorised by a magistrate.

The Commission’s answers seem to differ in terms of the thinking behind them. In the first, on the
situation in Cambodia, the Commission states: ‘In the absence of an in-depth analysis at this stage, the
Directive as well as measures adopted until now by the Ministry of Cults and Religious Affairs, which are
put in place to avoid the risks of religious conflicts, do not appear to violate the Universal Declaration on
Human Rights nor the provisions of the Cambodian Constitution,’ concluding that ‘the Commission does
not find any reason, at present, to believe that the government will use this Directive to discriminate
against any particular religious groups’. In the second, on the situation in India, the Commission expresses
its concern that this kind of state legislation could have the potential to restrict the Indian population’s
right to religious freedom. In conclusion it pledges that the Commission will ‘deal with this matter in the
same way that it deals with all other questions concerning democracy and human rights in India’.

Can the Commission answer the following:

(cid:1) given that these two responses are profoundly at odds, can the Commission state which line of
reasoning it intends to follow in order to uphold the principle of the secularity of institutions,
wherever they may be, as a fundamental bastion of the freedom of every individual;

(cid:1) does the Commission intend to accept highly restrictive interpretations of the right to religious
freedom solely on the grounds that governments use them in order to avoid religious conflict, as it has
done with Cambodia;

(cid:1) or does the Commission intend, as it has pledged in India’s case, to monitor the situation in, and, if
need be, exert diplomatic pressure on,
those countries that choose democratically to impose
conditions on their citizens’ rights to express their own beliefs freely and to promote awareness and
the dissemination of these beliefs, also freely?

C 11 E/242

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2003)

The Commission attaches great importance to the rights of freedom of religion, belief and expression in its
dialogues with third countries. Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief are fundamental human
rights and as such are enshrined in a number of
instruments including the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (Article 18),
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(Article 18) and the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 9). In addition, the EU Charter of
fundamental rights, which guides the Commission’s external action in this field, makes clear that everyone
has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 10) and that cultural, religious and
linguistic diversity should be respected.

international

The Union has repeatedly affirmed that human rights and democratisation must form an integral part of
all political dialogues with third countries. Religious freedom as a fundamental human right as well as the
rights of religious minorities are thus addressed through the Union’s bilateral political dialogues, and, when
appropriate, through démarches and public declarations, as well as through Union action in fora such as
the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights or the Third Committee of the UN General
Assembly.

Even if the political situation and the level of religious tension varies from country to country, the
Commission can assure the Honourable Members that it monitors the issue of religious freedom closely in
all countries and that it remains ready to raise particular concerns through all channels available, as
appropriate.

(2004/C 11 E/270)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2009/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Women’s organisations (cid:1) Budget Item A-3046

(11 June 2003)

In the answer to my question in April on the above subject (Written Question E-1436/03 (1)), I was
surprised to learn that, as far as the new Item A-3046 was concerned, the Commission had merely issued a
call for proposals with a view to financing a network of leading players involved in providing aid to
victims of trafficking in women. Having then consulted the text of ‘public call for proposals No VP/2002/
14’, to which the answer referred and of which, up to that point, I had known absolutely nothing, I
discovered that the Commission had severely restricted the scope of the new Item A-3046, created in
2002 and entered again in the 2003 budget.

Parliament approved this item on the understanding that any women’s organisations should be eligible to
benefit, the only qualification being that they should not belong to the European Women’s Lobby (LEF/
EWL). The aim in policy and budgetary terms was precisely to enable other women’s organisations, outside
the LEF/EWL monopoly, to be supported. The Commission, however, has sought to impose a significant
new restriction.

This way of proceeding is very surprising and I have my doubts as to whether it is even legal. It is
legitimate to ask whether the Commission has introduced a form of discrimination where women’s
organisations are concerned, by laying down a requirement contrary to the will of Parliament and without
regard to the budgetary authority and employing a means of favouring some NGOs at the expense of
others. It is legitimate to ask whether the Commission has distorted the real intention of Parliament and
the budgetary authority, because if they had wished to confine themselves to the problem of trafficking in
women, they would obviously have said so and expressly made the necessary provision. There is also
reason to suspect that the Commission may have acted specifically with the aim of helping the IRENE
organisation, adding to its existing funding, since, according to my information, it was already benefiting
under other Community programmes, including for example Daphne.