WRITTEN QUESTION E-2626/03 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Call for review of the Lhasa urban development plan.
Date: 2003-09-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: China, Tibetan question, architectural heritage, capital city, cultural identity, heritage protection, protection of minorities, urbanisation

C 65 E/182

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

(2004/C 65 E/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2603/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(20 August 2003)

Subject: Risk of deportation of leading Chechen from France to the Russian Federation

According to information gathered by the Chechnya Committee, Mr Rouslan Maigov, his wife and their
four children have applied for asylum in France. Mr Rouslan Maigov is the brother of Aslambek Maigov,
the Moscow representative of the Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov. Mr Rouslan Maigov has been
arrested and beaten up several times in Russia and Chechnya. When last arrested in December 2001, a
ransom of RUB 160 000 was paid to secure his release. Mr Rouslan Maigov is under particular threat for
carrying cassettes in which President Maskhadov conveyed his orders to Mr Maigov’s brother. Nevertheless,
OFPRA (the French Refugee Office) followed by the appeal committee have rejected the application by
Mr Rouslan Maigov and his family for asylum in France on the grounds that if Mr Aslambek Maigov is in
Moscow without, apparently, being under threat, his brother Rouslan and his family could live in Russia.
The argument put forward by the competent French authorities obviously does not take account of the
arrests and maltreatment to which the Russian authorities have subjected Mr Rouslan Maigov in the past
or the obvious ‘interest’ which the Russian authorities have shown in Mr Rouslan Maigov, or the fact that
it is unfortunately the current practice in Russia to subject the members of leading Chechens’ families to
threats, intimidation and violence by way of a warning. Finally, Mr Rouslan Maigov, his wife and four
children will be expelled from the reception centre for asylum-seekers at Marseilles in the next few days
and will be forced to leave the country.

Is the Council aware of the situation of Mr Rouslan Maigov and his family? Does the Council consider that
the decision by the competent French authorities is consistent with the common rules on the right of
asylum laid down in the Schengen agreements? In more general terms, given the serious threats to which
Chechens in the Russian Federation are subjected, does the Council not consider that it should take
emergency measures to block any decision to expel Chechens living in the countries which are signatories
to the Schengen agreements?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

The Council cannot intervene in individual asylum applications in the Member States, or in other
individual cases such as those referred to in the question

(2004/C 65 E/199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2626/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Call for review of the Lhasa urban development plan

The committee overseeing implementation of the Unesco Convention Concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage has urged the Chinese authorities to review their urban development
plan for Lhassa, the capital of Tibet. The decision was taken during the 27th session of the Unesco World
Heritage Committee, held in Paris from 30 June to 5 July 2003. The committee made a series of
recommendation to the Chinese authorities, with a view to mitigating the negative impact on the World
Heritage values of this property caused by development pressures and called for the implementation of a
national policy for the protection of the remaining historic traditional buildings in Lhasa. In 2002 the
Chinese authorities demolished historic Tibetan houses in Lhasa (www.savetibet.org/News), raising serious
concerns about Beijing’s commitment to fulfil its obligations to the Unesco Convention. The committee
also called for demolition to be stopped, ‘particularly in the Shol area’. Shortly afterwards, experts from
Unesco and Icomos (International Council on Monuments and Sites) conducted missions to Lhasa in
October 2002 and April 2003 respectively.

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/183

What steps has the Commission taken or does it intend to take to ensure that the Chinese authorities meet
their obligations and act upon Unesco’s requests? Does it intend to suspend funding for all projects in
Tibet
to act on the requests made by the international
community regarding the protection and conservation of Tibetan culture and heritage?

the Chinese authorities continue to fail

if

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2003)

Protection of the rights of minorities and, in particular their cultural identity, is one of the topics regularly
raised by the European Union in its bilateral human rights dialogue with China. The European Union will
continue to use this process to put forward its viewpoint to the Chinese authorities.

The Commission has always taken steps to ensure that the cooperation programmes implemented in the
autonomous region of Tibet serve first and foremost the interests of the local Tibetan population which is
itself concerned for the European Union to have a presence in the region. The Commission therefore
considers that any interruption in these programmes would inevitably have a negative impact on the local
population.

(2004/C 65 E/200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2643/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Sinking of the Danish cargo ship ‘Karin Cat’ caused by a shift of the cargo

1.
On 18 February 2003, the Danish cargo ship ‘Karin Cat’, with seven crew members on board, sank
in the Mediterranean Sea off the Greek coast. Fortunately, the crew managed to abandon ship before it
sank and were picked up by the Malaysian vessel ‘Bunga Pelangi Dua’. The Danish Maritime Authority
published a report on the accident on 29 July 2003. Is the Commission aware of this report?

2.
Cargo was loaded onto the ship at a number of ports. One of these ports was Antwerp, where,
among other cargo, two 18-metre loading arms and two smaller, 13-metre loading arms were loaded onto
the ‘Karin Cat’. The Danish Maritime Authority report states that the securing of the load in the Port of
Antwerp was carried out by the crew of the ‘Karin Cat’. Can the Commission confirm this?

The report goes into the possible causes of the accident in some detail. It states that the shift of the loading
arms mentioned above caused a hole in the hull of the ‘Karin Cat’, through which so much water poured
into the hull that the ship sank. According to the report, the reason for the shift of the cargo was that it
had been insufficiently secured to withstand the movement of the vessel during the prevailing rough sea
(see the conclusion on page 20 of the report).

3.

Can the Commission confirm that this conclusion is drawn in the Danish Maritime Authority report?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 2003)

The Commission has not received any specific information concerning the sinking of the Danish cargo
ship ‘Karin Cat’ on 18 February 2003.

Furthermore, it is not for the Commission to comment on the conclusions of the post-accident technical
investigation conducted by the Danish authorities. This type of investigation is a matter for the national
authorities responsible for determining the exact circumstances of accidents, in order where necessary to
formulate proposals for amending the regulations.