WRITTEN QUESTION E-2929/03 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Situation of Thich Tri Luc, a Vietnamese citizen enjoying HCR refugee status, kidnapped in Cambodia and awaiting trial in Vietnam.
Date: 2003-10-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: UNHCR, Viet Nam, cooperation policy, human rights, illegal restraint, refugee, right to justice

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/767

To what extent is expansion of voluntary fire services, such as already exist in the South Tyrol, Austria and
Germany, planned? Is such expansion also supported in Mediterranean countries?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member in particular to its reply to question E-2624/03, put to
the Council by Michel-Ange Scarbonchi, concerning civil protection against forest fires.

(2004/C 78 E/0817)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2929/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject: Situation of Thich Tri Luc, a Vietnamese citizen enjoying HCR refugee status, kidnapped in

Cambodia and awaiting trial in Vietnam

In its answer to Question E-2607/03 (1), the Commission states that it is extremely concerned about the
situation of the Venerable Thich Tri Luc (aged 49, secular name Pham Van Tuong), a member of the
Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV) a long-standing human rights campaigner, who is being held
in Ho Chi Minh City. His trial, originally announced by the Vietnamese Government for 1 August 2003,
has been postponed sine die. The Vietnamese authorities have refused to answer questions from the United
Nations High Commissioner. On 12 September,
in flat contradiction to his previous statements, the
Vietnamese Foreign Minister acknowledged that Thich Tri Luc had been secretly held for a year, claiming
that he had been ‘arrested at the frontier post in Tay Ninh province’, on Vietnamese territory, on 26 July
2002; the Minister announced that he would be tried under Article 91 of the Penal Code, for having
attempted to ‘escape abroad with the intention of contacting organisations there with a view to
undermining the Vietnamese Government’. Persons charged under this Article face sentences ranging from
three years to life imprisonment.

How has the Commission reacted to this blatant contempt for the UN’s mechanisms for protecting
refugees, and the major violations of human rights involved? Does the Commission intend to propose to
the Member States that they raise this case of violation of refugee status with the relevant UN bodies?
What measures does it intend to take to persuade the Vietnamese authorities to set the Venerable Thich Tri
Luc at liberty immediately and unconditionally? Does the Commission not believe that the Vietnamese
attitude in this matter constitutes sufficient grounds for radically revising the Union’s aid and cooperation
policy with Vietnam, particularly as regards the plan for legal reform over the next ten years?

(1) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 186.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

The Commission wishes to recall that its reply given to the Honourable Member’s Written Question
E-2607/03 (1) on the same issue remains entirely valid in the light of recent developments. The following
elements complement the Commission’s previous answer.

The circumstances of Thich Tri Luc’s arrest remain unclear. The Commission is concerned about Luc’s
incommunicado detention. The Commission will
therefore continue to seek clarifications from the
Vietnamese authorities.

C 78 E/768

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The case of Thich Tri Luc illustrates that the implementation and regular update of the ten year legal
reforms plan of the Government of Vietnam is of crucial
importance with a view to enhance good
governance and a properly functioning judiciary system. These objectives are priorities for Community
cooperation with Vietnam under the Country Strategy Paper 2002-2006.

(1) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 186.

(2004/C 78 E/0818)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2940/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Council

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Allocations from the Solidarity Fund

Following the ‘Prestige’ disaster,
the European Parliament adopted two resolutions calling on the
Commission ‘as a matter of urgency, to consider using all the necessary financial instruments to tackle
the economic, social and environmental consequences and assist the economic sectors affected’ and
demanding ‘the immediate adoption of measures to alleviate the damaged occasioned to those affected,
through use of the Solidarity Fund’ (1) and to assist ‘the people in economic sectors affected by the oil
pollution and restore the environment of the regions concerned’ (2).

Commissioner Barnier’s reply to my question E-3659/02 (3) on 26 February 2003 stated that
the
Commission had received the formal request from the Spanish authorities on 14 January 2003 for
mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide help with the clean-up costs of the oil slick
damage to the Galician coastline caused by the sinking of the ‘Prestige’.

The Commission recalled that the Solidarity Fund was set up to provide assistance principally in the event
of natural disasters and that it cannot be used to provide immediate financial assistance if the fairly specific
qualifying criteria outlined in the Regulation are met.

On 23 September, Community institution representatives including Budgets Commissioner Schreyer and
Council President Magri agreed to encourage mobilising the Solidarity Fund for three Member States:
Spain, Italy and Portugal. The agreement reached signed EUR 8,6 million to the Spanish regions affected
by the ‘Prestige’ disaster, EUR 47,6 million to the Italian regions recently hit by earthquakes, and
EUR 48,5 million to counteract the effects of the criminally-started forest fires in Portugal.

What estimates does the Council have as to the economic damage caused by these three disasters?

What amounts have the governments of Spain, Portugal and Italy respectively asked the EU to provide
from the Solidarity Fund to tackle the consequences of these disasters?

Why are the regions affected by the ‘Prestige’ disaster receiving less than one-fifth of what is to be received
by the regions which suffered earthquakes in Italy and forest fires in Portugal?

‘Texts Adopted’, 19.12.2002 (cid:1) P5_TA(2002)0629.
‘Texts Adopted’, 21.11.2002 (cid:1) P5_TA(2002)0575.

(1)
(2)
(3) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 125.

Reply

(4 March 2004)

First of all the Council points out to the Honourable Parliamentarian that of the three disasters referred in
the question only one, namely the forest fires in Portugal, can be considered as a major disaster in the
meaning of regulation 2012/2002 establishing the European Solidarity Fund, as indeed in this case the