WRITTEN QUESTION E-2573/03 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Council. Breach of binding OSCE obligations on freedom of thought, conscience and religion by Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
Date: 2003-08-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: CIS countries, European Union, OSCE, cooperation agreement (EU), freedom of opinion, freedom of religious beliefs, human rights

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/215

particular time, when no one was expecting it, recognise after all that fraud had occurred on a large scale
at Eurostat? Why did it on this occasion, unlike in previous comparable fraud cases, order the seizure of
records?

3. Would the Commission be surprised if, in view of the Commission’s conduct to date and the recent
radical changes in it, the European Parliament decided to conclude the consideration of this issue by
holding a parliamentary inquiry into the way in which the information which has become available over
the years concerning possible irregularities has been dealt with, the promptness and adequacy of measures
to prevent any recurrence and the way in which information has been provided on the subject at the
various stages?

(1) Written reply of 3 June 2003.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

The Commission has repeatedly said that it is anxious to respect the full independence of the European
Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and to avoid encroaching on inquiries in progress by prejudging the outcome.
But this does not mean that any action at all on its part is ruled out.

On 11 June 2003, as part of its follow-up to the 2001 discharge and at the request of Parliament, the
Commission mandated the Internal Audit Service (IAS) to carry out an examination of Eurostat contracts.
On 7 July 2003 the Commission received a first interim report
from IAS and an analysis by the
Directorate-General for Budget of the audit reports established by the Internal Audit Capacity of Eurostat.
This latter analysis showed that at
least during the 1990s there had been a number of serious
infringements of the Financial Regulation, and that the action taken on several important aspects of the
internal audit reports may not have shown the necessary breadth and thoroughness. The work of the IAS
is still ongoing.

In addition, a special Task Force Eurostat (TFES) was set up to provide the Commission with the
information necessary for it to take, where appropriate in several stages but in the short term, the
management and organisational measures, especially of a preventive nature, that were needed in order to
ensure that
the Financial Regulation and the associated rules of good administrative practice were
observed.

The Commission’s reference to the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty is self-
explanatory in a Union founded on the rule of law. The reports and information in the Commission’s
possession do not prejudge the assessment of the individual responsibilities involved, which will be arrived
at by the procedures established for the purpose. The Commission would also refer the honourable
Member to its answer to question E-2515/03 by Mr Bösch (1).

Finally, in reply to the last part of the honourable Member’s question, it is not for the Commission to
speculate on the way in which Parliament may choose to exercise its prerogatives with regard to
temporary committees of inquiry.

(1) See page 30.

(2004/C 84 E/0260)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2573/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Council

(7 August 2003)

Subject: Breach of binding OSCE obligations on freedom of thought, conscience and religion by Armenia,

Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan

Knowing that:

(cid:1) The OSCE member states have undertaken to respect freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

(cid:1) Despite these binding obligations stemming from OSCE membership, some of that organisation’s
member states are continuing to fine or imprison believers for peacefully practising their faith. Places

C 84 E/216

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

of worship are being closed and sacred objects destroyed; religious publications are being censored,
and the registration of religious communities is being made difficult or even impossible.

(cid:1) Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are in
particularly serious and constant breach of their binding and fundamental commitment to ensure
freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Under OSCE rules, decisions are taken by the member states on the basis of consensus. The EU Member
States are all also OSCE members, and the Union cooperates with the OSCE.

Despite these attacks on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion by third countries with
which the EU has agreements, the Commission has in no case taken any action to suspend or threaten to
suspend the agreements, even though it has openly recognised that fundamental human rights, and notably
the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, are being violated in the countries concerned.

Can the Council as such, as well as the individual Member States which form it, state whether the intention
exists to call for compliance with the OSCE rules and treaties and denounce the serious and persistent
breaches of fundamental human rights, notably the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,
in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the EU Member States have endorsed the
provisions of Chapter VII of the Helsinki Final Act signed in 1975 which determines the conditions for
respect for human rights,
including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. The principles
contained therein have regularly been reaffirmed by the OSCE in successive declarations, in particular the
Madrid 1983, Vienna 1989, Copenhagen 1990, Budapest 1994 and Istanbul 1999 declarations.

On top of this, the EU Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (PCAs) state that:

The parties shall cooperate on all questions relevant
democratic institutions,
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms according to international
principles.

to the establishment or reinforcement of
including those required in order to strengthen the rule of law, and the
law and OSCE

Of the countries mentioned in the question, the EU has Partnership and cooperation agreements with
Armenia (1), Azerbaijan (2), Georgia (3), Kazakhstan (4), Russia (5) and Uzbekistan (6).

The most recent meetings of the Cooperation Councils with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia took place
on 30 September 2003 (press release 13071/03), with Kazakhstan, on 22 July 2003 (press release
11440/03), with Russia, on 15 April 2003 (press release 7933/03) and with Uzbekistan, on 27 January
2003 (press release 5399/03). At all of these meetings the EU raised the question of respect for OSCE
rules.

Concerning Belarus, the Council (General Affairs and External Relations) adopted conclusions on 14 April
2003, which included a position on the situation of democracy and human rights in Belarus. Also in April
2003, the EU co-sponsored a Commission on Human Rights Resolution on Belarus which expresses deep
concern about reports of potential increased restrictions on the activities of religious organisations.

During the last year, the EU has also issued declarations and made demarches in cases of violation of
religious freedom, particularly regarding the approval of the law on freedom of conscience and religious
organisations.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/217

As for Turkmenistan, the EU made a declaration on 20 January 2003 (5462/03) calling upon the President
and the Government of Turkmenistan fully to cooperate with the process launched in the framework of
the OSCE under the mechanism agreed at the 1991 Moscow meeting of the conference on the human
dimension.

All of the abovementioned documents are publicly available on the internet.

(1) OJ L 239, 9.9.1999.
(2) OJ L 246, 17.9.1999.
(3) OJ L 205, 4.8.1999.
(4) OJ L 196, 28.7.1999.
(5) OJ L 327, 28.11.1997.
(6) OJ L 229, 31.8.1999.

(2004/C 84 E/0261)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2688/03

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Reduction in VAT rates for labour-intensive sectors

During the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2003 the European Commission reduced VAT in a
number of sectors to 6 %, by way of an experiment. In the Netherlands, this applied to hairdressers,
painters and plasterers of housing over 15 years old, bicycle repair services and shoe and clothing repair
services. The aim of the reduction in VAT was to increase employment.

The experiment with a lower rate of VAT on labour-intensive services proved a success. A study by the
Central Planning Office (CPB) based on Netherlands statistics shows that the reduction in the VAT rate
clearly had a positive effect on employment. The report speaks of a ‘significant impact on employment’.
For example, employment (full-time equivalent) rose by 14,5 % in the hairdressing sector during the period
1999 to 2002, compared with a total average rise in employment during this period in the Netherlands of
only 4 %.

Despite this, the Commission announced on 16 July that it did not intend to continue with the experiment
involving reduced VAT on labour-intensive services.

Does the Commission recognise the importance of the aforementioned labour-intensive sectors for

1.
employment and the economy in the Netherlands?

Is the Commission aware of the positive effects on employment resulting from the reduction in the

2.
VAT rate for the above-mentioned labour-intensive services in the Netherlands?

Does the Commission agree that its conclusions are based on a possibly incomplete and one-sided

3.
analysis of the effects of the experiments to date? If not, why not?

Does the Commission intend to reconsider its decision to end the experiment involving a low VAT

4.
rate on labour-intensive services, taking account of the current economic situation? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2003)

On 23 July 2003 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on reduced rates of VAT (1).
1.
Since the Commission’s aim was to improve the operation of the internal market it was important to give
all Member States the same rights in deciding whether they applied reduced rates, and for the same sectors.