WRITTEN QUESTION E-3343/03 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission. European Convention on Human Rights in relation to third countries.
Date: 2003-11-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, EU visa policy, European Convention on Human Rights, agreement (EU), economic sanctions, international sanctions, third country

C 78 E/526

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0547)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3343/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject: European Convention on Human Rights in relation to third countries

Since 1992, the EU has required the inclusion in all agreements with third countries of a clause concerning
the observance of human rights. As far as the author of this question is aware, a number of instruments
have been set up which the EU uses to achieve this objective, for example refusal to issue visas to
members of certain regimes and the freezing of assets accumulated in EU Member States. The author
entirely agrees with the need to insist on the observance of human rights and with the policy statements
contained in the report on violation of women’s rights and EU international relations, A5-0334/2003, in
particular paragraphs I, 7, 8, 10 and 17. Will the Commission, therefore, say what practical measures it
has taken in regard to regimes which do not observe human rights in their legislation and administration?

Under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State (cid:1) or international organisation such as
the EU (cid:1) has the right to withdraw from an agreement if a third party infringes significant conditions of
the agreement. In the light of this provision, will the Commission say whether this has actually occurred
with reference to the provisions of the agreements concerning respect for human rights? The author is
aware that the EU has taken measures in regard to countries such as Kenya, Nigeria, Zambia, Egypt,
Pakistan etc. Apart from those agreements, from which agreements has the EU actually withdrawn on the
grounds of infringement of the Convention on Human Rights?

Finally, will the Commission say how many times visas have been refused to regime members and assets
frozen in EU Member States on grounds of infringement of the Convention on Human Rights?

What specific measures have been taken since the 1992 decision to incorporate in all EU agreements with
third countries a clause concerning respect for human rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

The Commission refers to its response to written question E-2903/03 by Mrs Smet (1).

In addition to this response, the Commission notes that the human rights clause is a dynamic instrument
through which the Union can advance human rights in a positive manner. The inclusion of an essential
elements clause is not intended to signify a negative or punitive approach. It is, instead, meant to promote
dialogue and positive measures, such as joint support for democracy and human rights, the accession,
ratification and implementation of international human rights instruments where these are lacking, as well
as the prevention of crises through the establishment of a consistent and long-term relationship.

The Commission Communication of 1995 (2) makes clear that there are a range of measures which could
be considered in the event of a breach of the clause, with the proviso that the application of measures
should respect ‘the principle of proportionality between the breach cited and the degree of reaction’. The
Union has never fully withdrawn from a cooperation agreement, but sometimes has suspended its
application.

It should be noted that issuing visas is normally not regulated in these agreements. Hence,
it is not
necessary to suspend an existing Community agreement with a third country in order to adopt a visa ban.
Rather, this measure can be decided unilaterally by the European Union as a matter of the Common
Foreign and Security Policy. In practice, visa bans have been directed against representatives of Zimbabwe,
Angola, Nigeria, Sudan and Zaire as a complementary measure to the suspension of the Lomé/Cotonou
agreement with these countries. The EU has also adopted visa bans against Burma, Afghanistan, Belarus,
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and Libya which are not linked to the Community with any
international agreement at all.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/527

With regard to the freezing of assets, this has been exercised in relation to Afghanistan, Burma, the former
FRY, Iraq and Libya, which, again, have not concluded any agreement with the Community so far Angola
and Haiti, which are signatories to the Lomé/Cotonou agreement, were subject to the freezing of assets
under a decision to suspend cooperation with these countries under this agreement.

(1) See page 441.
(2) See annex 2 of the Communication on the inclusion of respect for democratic principles and human rights in
agreements between the Community and third countries for a list of measures that may be taken in the event of a
serious human rights violations, COM(95) 216 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0548)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3345/03

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject: Villas of Palladio

In 1994 the villas of Palladio were inscribed on the World Heritage List. It is now proposed to build a
54-kilometre motorway through the Veneto area with seven exits and tollgates (cid:1) the Valdastico South
motorway

Whilst acknowledging the right of the Italian Government to build such roads as it thinks fit, will the
Commission work with the Italian authorities to ensure that any such plans do not harm the Palladian
villas or the surrounding landscape and that a full and enhanced Environmental Impact Assessment is
carried out on the proposals?

Will the Commission also discuss with the Italian authorities whether the Valdastico South motorway is
needed, given the adequacy of the existing A22 motorway and the SS247 road and the fact that the
Valdastico North motorway very little used?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment (EIA Directive) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (1)
provides that Member States must ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have
significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject
to an assessment of the environmental effects. These projects are defined in Article 4 that refers to Annex I
and II of the Directive. The construction of motorways falls into Annex I point 7(b) for which a mandatory
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has to be carried out.

In such a case the Italian authorities should take measures to ensure that the environmental
assessment procedure is carried out which includes:

impact

(a) a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed
project such as archaeological heritage, landscape, population etc. (as per Article 5 and Annex IV),

(b) consultations with the public and other competent authorities responsible for the environment, and

(c) publication of the decision containing conditions attached to the development consent, main reasons
and consideration on which the decision is based and description, where necessary, of the main
measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major adverse effects.

The result of consultations and the information gathered pursuant to Articles 5 and 6 must be taken into
consideration in the development consent procedure.