WRITTEN QUESTION E-2089/03 by José Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Clarification concerning the budget line for non-governmental organisations involved in combating torture.
Date: 2003-06-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EU financing, aid policy, budget policy, medical centre, non-governmental organisation, torture

C 88 E/66

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of problems
faced by the substantial Egyptian Christian community.
The Commission has met with members of the Coptic hierarchy on several occasions to discuss them,
and have also closely followed incidents involving violence against Christians.

On the issue of converts to Christianity and freedom of movement, the Commission is following this
question up through its delegation in Cairo. Its preliminary information is that information on religion is
not mentioned on passports, although this may arise in the case of identity cards.

As part of the Barcelona process, the Egyptian Government is committed to the fundamental principles
relating to human rights and democracy. This is reflected in the text of the Association Agreement in the
process of ratification. Questions relating to human rights, including religious freedom, are dealt with as
part of the political dialogue between the Union and Egypt, in which the Commission plays its full part.
Human rights were discussed at the Union-Egypt ministerial meeting on 16/17 June 2003.

(2004/C 88 E/0072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2089/03

by José Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject: Clarification concerning the budget line for non-governmental organisations involved in combat-

ing torture

The European Parliament has supported victims of torture all over the world since 1993. Two budget
headings were created for this purpose (cid:1) one for third countries (B7-70) and another for the European
Union (B5-813). Thanks to aid from the European Union, programmes of assistance have been maintained
and developed in most countries of the world, both for victims of torture in those countries themselves
and for refugees and asylum-seekers.

The Commission has decided to step up its efforts in this area and we in the European Parliament back its
decision, but we are aware that the initiative is having an immediate effect on the situation of existing
victims, since no new funding has been allocated for them, resulting in the closure of many centres which
were dependent on such funding.

What is the actual impact of this change in policy? Are assistance and prevention two separate strategies?
What is the scope of the decision? Is European Union funding sufficient for prevention and assistance or
should the present figure be increased? What is envisaged with regard to this funding?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2003)

The Commission decided to adopt a more strategic approach to funding channelled through the European
Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) and the Commission’s Communication on Human
Rights and Democratisation of May 2001 (1) identified four thematic priorities for future EIDHR support,
including the prevention of torturer and the rehabilitation of torture victims. In line with the need to focus
limited funds more effectively, the Communication also underlined that the Union should seek to focus as
much as possible on the prevention of torture. The subsequent programming document for the European
funding would be
Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)
re-oriented in the direction of prevention of torture in the longer term.

in 2002-2004 noted that

The reduction in funds for rehabilitation centres has been accompanied by measures designed to reduce
existing dependency on Community funding in a progressive fashion, with the aim of enabling centres to
look for funds from other sources. For example, the 2001 call reduced the maximum percentage support

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/67

for rehabilitation projects to 60 % for centres inside the Union and 80 % for projects outside the Union.
These percentages were further reduced in the 2002 call to 50 % and 75 % respectively. The degree of
importance afforded to sustainability questions during the assessment process is also an important factor.
Moreover,
‘Institutional strengthening’, which includes the development of fund-raising capabilities, was
explicitly eligible for funding in 2001 and 2002.

The 2002 Call for Proposals was designed to continue this process. The Call, for EUR 25 million, covered
the funding of torture prevention projects and rehabilitation centres, with a plan to allocate 1/3 and 2/3 of
the funds available to those two fields of activities respectively. All projects submitted were evaluated by
two experts, which both had experience in torture issues. The projects were ranked according to score and
were selected with a view to ensuring a balance in the geographical distribution of the proposed activities.

The quality of the projects submitted by the rehabilitation centres for activities based within the Union
(budget line B5-813) did, in fact, produce a result which respected the planned balance. However, the
projects submitted by centres based outside the Union scored rather badly (sometimes below the minimum
required), which did not allow for the selection of sufficient rehabilitation projects to respect the envisaged
2/3 to 1/3 balance. Around EUR 4,5 million was allocated to centres outside the Union (for the period
2002-2003), with around EUR 8 million being provided for torture prevention projects. Approximately
EUR 4 million was allocated for rehabilitation centres inside the Union, with an additional EUR 2 million
for projects including aspects in support of victims of torture.

As regards the likelihood of centres closing as a result of failure to secure Community support, this must
be considered in light of the expressed policy to move away from rehabilitation and towards prevention
and the measures outlined above which have accompanied that change in policy. Support to centres can
only be given in accordance with competitive rules designed to ensure that the Union taxpayer gets value
for money by only funding the best proposals, which meet minimum quality requirements.

A further call for EUR 11,5 million will be launched in 2003 for rehabilitation centres inside the Union
under budget line B5-813 (covering the 2003 and 2004 budget, with the reservation that the use of 2004
credits is also approved).

The Commission is currently reflecting on the programming of the EIDHR for 2004 and beyond and held
a special non-governmental organisations seminar on 14 July 2003 in order to canvass views on thematic
priorities, including torture.

(1) COM(2001) 252 final.

(2004/C 88 E/0073)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2104/03

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 June 2003)

Subject: Burmese Rohingya refugees

In addition to the approximately 22 000 Rohingya refugees currently accommodated at the two official
refugee camps in Bangladesh, a further 4 000 illegal refugees are residing at the new, unrecognised Teknaf
Makeshift Camp, which will shortly be in danger of flooding as the monsoon season begins.

Is the Commission aware of the situation of the Rohingya refugees at Teknaf Makeshift Camp?

Has the Commission contacted the Government of Bangladesh to offer assistance (e.g. emergency aid) to
the Rohingyas? If not, will it do so?

Has the Commission had any contact with the UNHCR about the situation of these refugees and ways of
helping them?