WRITTEN QUESTION E-2607/03 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Thich Tri Luc, a monk kidnapped in Phnom Penh and rediscovered in a Vietnamese prison.
Date: 2003-08-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Buddhist, Commission Delegation, EU relations, UNHCR, Viet Nam, illegal restraint, religious group, right of asylum, right to justice, torture

C 58 E/186

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

Would this not be in contravention of Council Directive 89/48/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 on a general
system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education
and training?

Is the proposed Directive on recognition of professional qualifications (2) going to eliminate this anomaly,
particularly since French teachers are able to teach in the United Kingdom without such an additional
examination?

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.
(2) COM(2002) 119 final.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

The Court of Justice has just delivered a judgment in a case concerning a preliminary ruling (Case C-285/
01 ‘Burbaud’), which may provide some clarification of Community rules governing the issue raised by the
Honourable Member. The Commission is currently examining the judgment and will provide the
Honourable Member with an answer as soon as this analysis has been completed.

(2004/C 58 E/200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2607/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(25 August 2003)

Subject: Thich Tri Luc, a monk kidnapped in Phnom Penh and rediscovered in a Vietnamese prison

Exactly a year ago I notified the Commission of the disappearance of the Buddhist monk Thich Tri Luc, a
member of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV), a banned organisation, who had been
kidnapped in Phnom Penh after seeking asylum in Cambodia. Aged 49, Thich Tri Luc (secular name Pham
Van Tuong) had fled from Vietnam to escape religious persecution. The ten years that followed his first
arrest in 1992 were a series of harassments, imprisonment and house arrest for supporting the UBCV. The
status of refugee, granted by the Phnom Penh office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in June
2002, did not prevent his kidnapping in the night of 25 July by unidentified individuals. Both Vietnam
and Cambodia had denied having any information on his abduction and disappearance and the HCR was
unable to obtain any information as to his plight. Thich Tri Luc has now resurfaced, not as a free person
protected by the United Nations, but as a prisoner awaiting trial behind bars in a Vietnamese jail.
According to the Vietnamese Human Rights Committee, ‘after a year without news his family has received
a short message from the People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City inviting them to attend the trial of Pham
Van Tuong’. Scheduled for 1 August, the trial has been postponed without setting a date. His family does
not know where he is being held, or the charges against him, and has not been allowed to visit him.
During this illegal and secret imprisonment, which has lasted 12 months, Thich Tri Luc has been subjected
not only to serious psychological and physical pressure but has also been denied the right to a fair trial, as
he has been unable to contact a lawyer and prepare his defence. As he is both a prisoner of conscience
and a member of a Church that is still banned he is likely to receive a very long prison sentence.

Does the Commission know that Thich Tri Luc was kidnapped and forcibly repatriated in spite of his
refugee status, and that he has been detained in secret in Vietnam for over a year? Is it aware of the
charges against Thich Tri Luc, and has it asked for its representative in Hanoi to be allowed to visit him in
prison and attend his trial? What representations will the Commission be making to prevent the continual
violation by the Cambodian and Vietnamese authorities of international
laws governing the status of
refugees, particularly the principle of ‘non-refoulement’ of persons whose freedom is at threat in their own
country because of their religion, race or political opinions? Should not these violations by the Hanoi and
Phnom Penh authorities induce the Commission to adopt sanctions under the human rights clause in the
EU’s Cooperation Agreements with Vietnam and Cambodia?

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/187

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The Commission reacted with concern to the disappearance from Cambodia of Thich Tri Luc, a Refugee
under the protection of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in July 2002.
The exact circumstances, under which he left Cambodia and came into police custody in Vietnam have not
been clarified. The Commission has not yet received any reply to its request to the Vietnamese authorities
for further information on Thich Tri Luc. Nor has the Commission confirmation yet of the exact charges
that the Vietnamese authorities now lay against him. In the past, the Union Presidency has repeatedly
requested that the authorities of Vietnam allow Union diplomats to attend trials of Persons of concern.
So far the authorities of Vietnam have not allowed foreign diplomats to attend any of these trials.
The Commission will continue to follow this case, via its Delegation in Hanoi and in close collaboration
with the Member States.

The Commission would like to recall that it attaches great importance to the rights of freedom of religion,
belief, expression and of a fair trial. 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 one of the fundamental human rights, are 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 Commission on Human Rights or the Third Committee of the
for Human Rights and democratic
United Nations General Assembly. The reference to the respect
principles
the
Commission to address human rights issues in its bilateral contacts with the Governments of these
countries.

in the Community-Co-operation Agreements with Vietnam and Cambodia enables

The Commission would like to reiterate that its overall policy towards Vietnam is to encourage and
support progress on human rights and democratisation, and to raise concerns where abuses occur or
where a deterioration in the situation becomes evident. The Commission, through its Delegation in Hanoi,
works closely with the Member States to monitor human rights developments in the country, participates
in all Union démarches to the Government of Vietnam on human rights issues.

(2004/C 58 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2611/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject: Working hours and the SIMAP case (Case C-303/98) of 3 October 2000

In its answer to Written Question E-3515/02 (1) given on 2 December 2002, the Commission said that it
had decided to issue an invitation to tender for a study of the scope and consequences of the SIMAP case
for Member States.

In its answer to Written Question E-0535/03 (2) given on 24 March 2003, the Commission said that the
invitation to tender had been issued for this study and that a meeting with national experts had already
taken place on the implications of the judgment.

Why did the Commission wait for almost 2½ years before issuing the invitation to tender for this study?

When does it envisage the results of this study being completed and made public? Does it believe that this
should be done before it publishes its Communication on working time due by the end of 2003 which, it
has already indicated, will address the implications of the SIMAP judgement?

the Irish Government has already failed to meet

Given that
the 1 August 2003 deadline for the
transposition into Irish law of some elements of Directive 2000/34/EC (3), which extends the 1993
Working Time Directive to the excluded sectors, what views were presented by the Irish Government’s
representative at the meeting of national experts referred to by the Commission in its answer to Written
Question E- 0535/03?

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 217.
(2) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 199.
(3) OJ L 195, 1.8.2000, p. 41.