WRITTEN QUESTION P-2310/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission. EU nationals imprisoned in Japan.
Date: 2003-07-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Commission Delegation, EU Member State, EU national, European citizenship, Japan, diplomatic protection, powers of the institutions (EU), prisoner

C 88 E/400

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Can the Commission therefore say:

(cid:1) what information it currently has on the work of the ad hoc court;

(cid:1) what conclusions it draws from it;

(cid:1) what degree of credibility the court’s decisions have, in the light of the requirements of the primacy of

the rule of law and full observance of international human rights legislation;

(cid:1) what programmes between the EU and Indonesia are under way or being planned as regards good

governance, strengthening of the judicial system and respect for human rights?

(1) See page 337.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

The Commission, through its Delegation in Jakarta and together with the Member States Representations
in Indonesia, has been monitoring closely the course of the Ad Hoc tribunal on East Timor.

Following the most recent verdict, issued on 5 August 2003, the Union issued a ‘Declaration’ in which it
expressed its disappointment and stated that ‘the deficiencies in the process have jeopardised the credibility
of the verdicts’.

The Commission intends to encourage the competent authorities to improve the proceedings for the
appeal process, according to international standards of justice to ensure that the verdicts are proportionate
to the seriousness of the crimes committed.

the Commission has a standing
the judicial system in Indonesia,
Considering the deficiencies of
commitment of EUR 13 millions to the ‘Partnership for Good Governance’ programme, implemented by
the United Nations Development Programme UNDP. The Commission is also designing a EUR 11 million
‘Judiciary Support Programme’,
the
Commission is considering a request by the National Commission on Human Rights KOMNAS HAM for
specialised technical assistance in the field of investigation techniques, in conflict areas in Indonesia.

judges and prosecutors. Moreover,

focused on the training of

(2004/C 88 E/0406)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2310/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: EU nationals imprisoned in Japan

(8 July 2003)

it has the right

Given that
to attend the monthly meetings of the EU Consular officials, can the
Commission supply details of how many EU nationals, broken down into numbers from each EU Member
State, are currently in prisons in Japan?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

The Commission Delegation in Tokyo participates in Union co-ordination meetings on consular affairs
only in so far as the Commission is specifically competent for the matters under discussion. Prison visits
and care of Member State citizens in need of consular help do not fall within the remit of the Commission

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/401

Delegation. However, during discussions at the consulate meeting the latest figure mentioned for Western
prisoners in Tokyo alone was 100. Precise data is difficult to obtain, particularly if Union citizens are
arrested and held in local prefectures.
(In some cases this also involves a different interpretation of
nationality as for instance the United Kingdom Embassy does not accept Hong Kong citizens to be
considered as Chinese nationals by the Japanese authorities). The highest proportion of cases concern the
violation of drug related laws. The Commission is not in a position, therefore, to give a more detailed
breakdown in terms of numbers from each Member State. This information should be sought from the
Member States themselves.

(2004/C 88 E/0407)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2317/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject: European citizens’ right to privacy

(originally ‘Total

Information Awareness’,

The EU-US summit was held on 25 June this year. One of the topics was or should have been the TIA
project
subsequently changed to ‘Terrorism Information
Awareness’), basically a project to provide a gigantic apparatus for gathering and analysing information
obtained from the most varied sources, ranging from existing data banks to commercial transactions, from
people’s movements to intercepted communications. According to Stefano Rodotà, the guarantor of the
Italian privacy watchdog, we are witnessing a new dimension of surveillance, which increases the power of
the State to obtain any personal data, irrespective of who gathered it and the original purpose for which it
was gathered. The European Parliament, via its President Pat Cox, made its views clear: ‘we cannot let the
US dictate law in Europe’.

1. What was the outcome, as regards the TIA, of the summit meeting between the EU and the US held
on 25 June this year?

Does the Commission not consider that US legislation on the subject cannot and must not have
if necessary, the most appropriate way of settling such issues is by

2.
extraterritorial validity and that,
international treaty?

Did the Commission uphold the principle that it is unacceptable that the United States should gather,
information resulting from communications freely exchanged between

3.
by any means at its disposal,
European citizens?

4. What steps will the Commission take to safeguard the privacy of European citizens?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

The Commission is following closely the whole range of initiatives introduced by the United States of

1.
America since 11 September 2001, which aim at enhancing security.

Among these is the Terrorism Information Awareness (TIA) project, raised by the Honourable Member.
Since the beginning of 2003, various congressional actions have aimed at imposing a moratorium on the
use, without congressional approval and appropriate civil liberties protections, of data mining technology
by the Defence department and by the new Department of Homeland Security.
In February 2003,
Congress suspended funding for the Total Information Awareness programme and required the Defence
It also restricted the
Department

to explain the project’s privacy and civil

liberties implications.