WRITTEN QUESTION P-3333/03 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. North Korean refugees in China.
Date: 2003-11-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: China, EU relations, North Korea, UN convention, human rights, international relations, refugee, return migration

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/57

(cid:1) Finally, as regards the possibility of a thorough investigation into this case, the Commission can
confirm that it has not conducted such an investigation, and has no intention of doing so, given that
there is nothing in the information brought to its attention to suggest that there has been any breach
of the Community rules on company law.

(1) Third Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 concerning mergers of public limited liability companies,

OJ L 295, 20.10.1978.

(2) Sixth Council Directive 82/891/EEC of 17 December 1982 concerning the division of public limited liability

companies, OJ L 378, 31.12.1982.

(2004/C 84 E/0063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3214/03

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject: North Korean refugees

The enforced repatriation of North Korean refugees in China has been brought to my attention. Some of
the individuals who are being repatriated face the real risk of detention and torture in North Korea.

This is concerning in view of Article 33 of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention which says that a state shall
not return a refugee to a situation of serious risk.

What is the Commission’s policy with regard to relations with North Korea and what can the Commission
do to ensure that North Korean refugees in China are not forced to return to North Korea when it might
be unsafe for them to do so?

(2004/C 84 E/0064)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3333/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(6 November 2003)

Subject: North Korean refugees in China

Is the Commission aware of the current situation in China of North Korean refugees being deported back
to the DPRK?

What measures are being taken by the Commission to address this state of affairs? Has it raised this issue
with the Chinese government and reminded them of their obligations under the 1951 UN Convention on
the status of refugees?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3214/03 and P-3333/03
given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2003)

North Korea is currently a major concern for the international community including the Union.
The Commission has various channels to meet representatives of the North Korean Government and to
put forward its concerns. Human rights issues, including the situation of North Korean refugees on the
border with China, are systematically raised during these regular political contacts. It has expressed to the
North Korean authorities its concerns about the treatment of these people once returned by China to the
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). The Commission urged the DPRK to respect
the
fundamental rights of these citizens.

C 84 E/58

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

At the recent session of the United Nations Commission of Human Rights in Geneva (UNHCR), the Union
tabled a resolution on the human rights situation in the DPRK. This was adopted by the UNHCR on
16 April 2003 and included a mention of the North Korean refugees in China.

The Union has consistently, within its political dialogue with China, expressed concern about the forcible
repatriations of North Korean asylum (cid:1) seekers to the DPRK. The issue has also been addressed within the
Union (cid:1) China Human Rights Dialogue. The Union will again raise the matter during the upcoming
round of this dialogue, on 27/28 November 2003 in Beijing, China.

(2004/C 84 E/0065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3234/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Export of lottery tickets from one country to another

(3 November 2003)

Plans by some Member States to market their own state lottery tickets in other Member States and in non-
EU countries presuppose a change in the nature of such export transactions, hitherto deemed to be illegal.

Some of these lotteries offer very attractive prizes, which is why citizens in other Member States seek to
buy tickets for them in their own countries.

Can the Commission say which Community rules could be applied to the free marketing of state lottery
tickets throughout the EU and what could be done to overcome the problem posed by the fact that the
sale of lottery tickets outside the issuing Member State is currently considered illegal?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

According to the judgement of the Court of Justice, marketing of a state lottery should be examined under
Article 49 of the EC Treaty (free movement of services): in the Schindler case (C-275/92), the Court ruled
in fact that the offer into a Member State of advertisements and tickets of a lottery operated in another
Member State relates to a ‘service’ within the meaning of the EC Treaty.

It is not entirely clear whether it refers to restrictions from the country of origin to the export of national
lottery tickets (in this case, it might be useful to make also reference, by analogy, to the Court decision in
the Alpine case, C-34/93, concerning financial services) and/or to restrictions from a recipient country to
the import of foreign lottery tickets (which was the case in the Schindler case).

A complete legal assessment of the issue can be carried out only on a case by case basis, according to the
specific circumstances of each situation, however, it can be noted that the existing jurisprudence does not
suggest, as the Honourable Member implies, that such activities would necessarily be illegal.

From a general point of view, it is true that the Court has recognised, in the Schindler case, that national
authorities could have a degree of latitude to impose restrictions on the sale of lottery tickets issued by
another country to protect consumers and, more generally, in the light of the specific social and cultural
features of each Member State, to maintain order in society, as regards the manner in which lotteries are
operated, the size of the stakes, and the allocation of the profits they yield.

However, it has to be considered that in that case the relevant national authority did not operate a national
lottery and applied this ban to all such services in a non-discriminatory fashion. Moreover, the Court has
recently refined its doctrine both in the Gambelli case (C-243/01), where it has stated that restrictions in
the area of gambling must serve to limit such activities in a consistent and systematic manner, and in the