WRITTEN QUESTION E-3521/03 by Anne Van Lancker (PSE) to the Commission. Human rights violations in the USA.
Date: 2003-11-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, United States, judicial proceedings, rights of the defence

C 88 E/466

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

(2004/C 88 E/0479)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3517/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject: Fair trade

Would it be considered as discriminatory under EU public procurement regulations to stipulate that Fair
Trade products must be used in public tenders for catering services?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Once a contracting authority has decided on the subject matter of the procurement contract intended for
its catering services (what generic type of products to buy), it is free to define the technical specifications
of those products. The requirements must, however, relate to the characteristics or performance of the
products (e.g., glasses or plates made out of recycled material) or the production of
the products
(e.g. organically grown ones).

A contracting authority wishing to procure Fair-trade products (meaning products certified using standards
set by the private Fair-trade Labelling Organisations International) for catering services must define the
technical specifications of the products in relation to the social or environmental performances underlying
the label. While the contracting authority may indicate that products having that label are deemed to
comply with the technical specifications, it must also allow economic operators to prove compliance with
the technical specifications by other means of proof. Only on a case by case basis it can be determined
which of Fair-trade’s diverse standards (or parts thereof) describe the characteristics or performance of the
product to be purchased.

Contracting authorities procuring goods must respect the fundamental Community principles, including
the principle of equal treatment, of which non-discrimination is a specific expression. It follows from
established case law of the European Court of Justice that not only acts of de jure discrimination are
prohibited under the EC Treaty, but also acts which hinder non-nationals more than nationals (de facto
discrimination).

Due to the wide range of standards comprised by the Fair-trade label and the wide range of products
available in the catering business, it is only possible on a case by case basis, taking into account all
circumstances surrounding the purchase, to determine whether a contracting authority infringes upon the
principle of non-discrimination.

(2004/C 88 E/0480)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3521/03

by Anne Van Lancker (PSE) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject: Human rights violations in the USA

Fernando González, Rene González, Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labanino and Antonio Guerrero are five
Cubans currently imprisoned in the USA for, amongst other things, conspiracy to commit espionage and
conspiracy to commit murder. They had, in fact, infiltrated Cuban organisations in Miami in order to
prevent terrorist attacks on Cuba. The trial of the five Cubans was held in Miami. With a Cuban immigrant
community largely hostile to the Cuban Government, the city cannot be considered a neutral venue for

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/467

such a trial. Holding the trial there thus constitutes a violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the
US Constitution. They were convicted without any evidence. On the basis of this information, 105 British
MPs signed a motion calling for a review of the case. In addition, the wives of two of those convicted who
have already been in prison for five years (Gerardo Hernández and Rene González) have, to date, been
denied the right to visit their husbands. Amnesty International has already condemned the denial of
visiting rights.

Is the Commission aware of the above? Will the Commission bring this matter to the attention of the US
Administration in the context of its relations with the USA?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The Union has taken no position with regard to the specific case referred to by the Honourable Member.
As a general rule, the Union does not intervene in individual cases except where the death penalty is
invoked, and where the case falls under the guidelines established by the Council’s Common Position of
29 June 1998.

(2004/C 88 E/0481)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3550/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject: Zimbabwe (cid:1) Censorship and repression

In the last few weeks, the ZANU-PF Government of President Mugabe closed down Zimbabwe’s only
independent daily newspaper (cid:1) The Daily News (cid:1) and stepped up repression of political opponents and
dissidents. The newspaper’s lawyers went to the local Administrative Court seeking the revocation of the
in which it was
decision to close the paper, which they were granted by the ruling of 24 October,
acknowledged that the government’s Committee for the Media and Information had no legitimate right to
stop the publication of the newspaper.

After a single edition appeared, the police closed the paper again, on the basis of a government appeal to
the Supreme Court, which suspended the effects of the previous ruling. Zimbabwe’s Supreme Court,
currently presided over by Judge Godfrey Chidyausiku, a former Mugabe minister, may take years to
consider this appeal.

Given the climate of violence and intimidation, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) opposition
party has apparently already reorganised itself in such a way as to enable it to operate clandestinely.

John Makumbe, professor of political science at Harare’s University of Zimbabwe, claims that the next
target will be NGOs, given that the Zimbabwean Parliament is drafting legislation demanding that such
organisations be registered, and providing for possible suspension of their senior personnel.

The Commission:

(cid:1) what information does it have about this fresh wave of human rights violations in Zimbabwe;

(cid:1) what steps has it taken or will it take to bring pressure to bear on the Zimbabwean authorities to

cease carrying out action of this kind;

(cid:1) can it confirm the imminent promulgation of laws infringing the freedom and independence of the

press and the non-governmental organisations operating in Zimbabwe;

(cid:1) what approaches has it made recently to civil society and the opposition in Zimbabwe, with a view to
ascertaining and promoting the best way of tackling the current political and social situation there?