WRITTEN QUESTION E-2224/03 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Additional Protocol for Nuclear Material Safeguards.
Date: 2003-07-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Iran, nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear safety, nuclear weapon

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/621

(cid:1) the 1997 federal law on religion establishes that religious organisations may not exercise the functions
of state institutions and may not accompany the proceedings of government bodies with religious
ceremonies.

In view of the cooperation agreements concluded by the Russian Orthodox Church:

(cid:1) with the Ministry of Defence in 1997 with a view to ‘working together to revive Orthodox traditions

in the Russian army and navy’,

(cid:1) with the Ministry of Education in August 1999 with a view to ‘educating the young generations in the
in particular, numerous attempts by the Russian Orthodox

spirit of old moral values’ (including,
Church to bolster its influence within the Russian education system),

(cid:1) with the Ministry of Health and the Foreign Ministry on 5 and 6 March 2003 respectively,

(cid:1) with many Russian local authorities,

and given that the constant increase in concordat agreements between the Russian Orthodox Church and
various state bodies, both at federal and at local levels, has conferred on this Church special powers,
thereby discriminating against other religious faiths, and given it special and exclusive access to prisons,
the army, schools and hospitals,

will the Commission state:

(cid:1) whether it is aware of the above cooperation agreements between the Russian Orthodox Church and

the Russian State, discriminating against other religious faiths?

(cid:1) what measures it intends to take to ensure that religious freedom is restored in Russia, as required by

the Russian Constitution and the federal law on religion?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the difficult situation facing religious group in Russia.

The EU/Russia partnership is based on fundamental core values, among which is full respect of human
rights. The Commission frequently raises its concerns about the need for Russia to guarantee the full
respect of human rights in the context of our political dialogue.

The Commission will continue to impress upon the Russian authorities that the major international and
European Human Rights conventions that Russia has ratified, which include reference to freedom of
religion or belief, must be complied with. It appears that certain measures grant privileges to the Russian
Orthodox Church as compared with other religions and may therefore be incompatible with the principle
of State neutrality towards religious institutions. In addition to this, it should be recalled that Russia is a
focus country under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights programme, a Commission
programme which aims, inter alia, to promote Human Rights.

(2004/C 88 E/0641)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2224/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Additional Protocol for Nuclear Material Safeguards

In reply to my question H-0867/02 (1) the Commission stated that ‘the Union continues to encourage Iran
to join the International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol for Nuclear Material Safeguards. It
appears that Iran in general has been complying, including accepting inspections of its nuclear sites’.

C 88 E/622

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

In fact, on 17 June 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed the allegations made by the
democratic opposition to the theocratic regime in Teheran, the National Council of Resistance of Iran,
which I referred to and which were widely known at
thus
demonstrating that the situation as it appeared to the Commission did not and does not correspond to the
actual situation.

the Commission’s reply,

the time of

How does the Commission explain the fact that, only a few months ago, it confined itself to repeating the
propaganda issued by the dictatorial regime in Iran, and that it did not consider it appropriate to take
account of reports, which have now been confirmed, of the war-mongering intentions of the repressive
Iranian regime?

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to pay closer attention in future to objective information
on the real situation in Iran, rather than contenting itself with uncritical acceptance of propaganda from
the regime?

(1) Written answer of 14.1.2003.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2003)

The EU has repeatedly stated that the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) constitutes one of the
major areas of concern in its relations with Iran. While recognising Iran’s right as a party to the Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the Commission strongly
supports the view of the EU that Iran must be fully transparent and in compliance with this Treaty. The
Commission welcomed the June 2003 report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) but noted
with concern that Iran had failed to fulfil certain of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) safeguards agreement. It trusts that Iran will address these shortcomings without delay and hopes
that Iran, will take steps to adhere to relevant international instruments (cid:1) such as the IAEA Additional
Protocol (cid:1) to ensure adequate transparency.

It goes without saying that the Commission does not, as the Honourable Member implies, confine itself to
‘repeating the propaganda’ from a ‘dictatorial regime’ with ‘war mongering intentions’. The Commission
along with the EU Member States has made every attempt to base itself on objective information. In this
context, the Commission would hesitate to refer to the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) as
‘the democratic opposition’ to the regime in Teheran.

(2004/C 88 E/0642)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2266/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject: Financing of, and agreements with the EU concerning, construction in future EU Member States of

camps to accommodate refugees seeking admission to the present Member States

1. Who is paying for the connection to electricity and water supplies and to drains of 13 huts on the
former army base in the village of Trstenik near the town of Dugo Selo, 50 km from the Croatian capital,
Zagreb? Is the money coming from the European Union, the United Kingdom or both jointly?

2. Was EU funding made available for such projects even before 20 June 2003 or will it be made
available after the Commission report on financial and legislative consequences in 2004?

3. Will the intended use of the camp in Trstenik remain confined to temporarily housing 800 asylum-
seekers who wish to settle in Britain, and will all of them be people from the Balkan States who are
transported there after making themselves known to the authorities at ports or airports in the United
Kingdom?