WRITTEN QUESTION E-0239/04 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Persecution of Christians and Buddhists in the Lao People's Democratic Republic.
Date: 2004-02-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Laos, cooperation agreement (EU), ethnic discrimination, freedom of religious beliefs, government violence, religious discrimination, right to justice

C 84 E/340

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

to the Schools, the fees paid are much lower than the relevant costs. Charges are currently EUR 2 680 per
place for primary school and EUR 3 657 per place for secondary school annually. These charges plainly do
not meet the average annual cost per pupil across the European Schools of almost EUR 11 000, reaching
as much as EUR 16 500 per year in the European School in Bergen, EUR 16 000 in Mol and EUR 13 700
in Culham.

The necessarily increased budgetary requirements of the Schools as a consequence of enlargement, the
budgetary restrictions of the EU budget, and the difficulty in justifying large subsidies for the education of
pupils whose parents are not connected with the EU Institutions combine to make necessary increases in
fees towards levels which relate more directly to real costs. In its capacity as a Member of the Board of
Governors of the European Schools (which is otherwise drawn from all Member States), and fulfilling its
duties of preparing submissions to the EU budgetary authorities and executing the approved budget, the
Commission has recently proposed that the fees for category 3 pupils be increased gradually over the next
five years. The proposal differentiates between a) new category 3 pupils for whom the increase would, by
2010, mean annual fees of EUR 9 400 for new primary and EUR 12 500 for new secondary pupils and b)
existing category 3 pupils for whom the increase would, by 2010, mean annual fees of EUR 5 800 for
primary, and EUR 8 000 for secondary pupils.

The proposal has yet to be adopted by the Board of Governors.

The attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the fact that the parents of many existing category 3
pupils already benefit from a system of substantial exoneration of fees and that will continue until the end
of their children’s studies.

(2004/C 84 E/0399)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0239/04

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: Persecution of Christians and Buddhists in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic

The authorities of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic recently ordered the arrest of 11 Lao Christians.
According to statements made to the Vientiane Times by Mr Yong Chanthalangy, a spokesman for the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, those arrested are accused of ‘possessing poisons’. In the same interview,
Mr Yong stressed that his country recognises complete freedom of religion, and he rejected the accusations
made by various organisations campaigning for the respect of fundamental rights in Laos, according to
which the Christians had been arrested for having attended a Christmas mass. The Paris-based Lao
Movement for Human Rights had reported the arrest of 11 Christians, most of whom belonged to the
Khmu and Oey ethnic minorities, on 28-29 December in the province of Attapeu. At the same time, the
movement criticised once again the persecution to which many Christians and Buddhists are subjected, and
emphasised that declarations made by the Vientiane authorities advocating freedom of religion are aimed
primarily at donor countries and organisations. In reality, religious freedom is viewed as a threat to the
regime in power. The spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the persons in question
‘had not been charged but were arrested for questioning on charges of possession of poisons’. Mr Yong
also denied reports by Radio Free Asia and other foreign news agencies that 10 Christians had been
arrested in the southern province of Savannakhet because they were organising a demonstration against
the arrests of Christians in Attepeu.

What information does the Commission have on the arrests of Lao Christians in the provinces of Attapeu
and Savannakhet? Does the Commission not believe that arrests of Lao citizens without any charges being
made are a manifest violation of democratic principles, the rule of law and fundamental rights, which are
the foundations of the EU-Lao PDR Cooperation Agreement? Does the Commission still believe that the
Cooperation Agreement should be upheld, despite systematic and extremely serious violations by the
Vientiane authorities? Did the Commission raise these issues during the last meeting of the EU-Lao PDR
Joint Committee on 7 January 2004? If so, what outcome was achieved?

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/341

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

The Lao government’s attitude towards religion has changed during recent years, with the majority of
members of the politburo of the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party now openly participating in the
country’s biggest Buddhist ceremonies.

However, the Commission is aware of reports that freedom of religious expression remains restricted in
certain parts of Laos, including reports of members of Christian groups being persecuted and/or detained
on grounds of their religious affiliation in particular provinces. There have also been reports of arrest and
detention of religious believers and their spiritual leaders without charges. This was done despite the fact
that the Constitution stipulates ‘the right and freedom to believe or not to believe in religion’.

Regarding the specific cases raised in the question, according to Commission sources the 11 people
arrested in Attapeu in December 2003 were released a few weeks ago. The Commission has not been able
to confirm the reports of alleged arrests in Svannaketh.

The Commission maintains a policy of constructive political dialogue with the Laotian government,
combined with continued support to the most vulnerable groups in the Lao society through EC-assisted
development programmes. The suspension of aid until basic human rights are respected should be
considered as the last resort, as it would be likely to impact badly on the populations whose rights are
violated.

Should, however, the situation deteriorate to such a point that the EU cooperation with Laos had to be put
in question, the Commission would be ready to review the present EC co-operation framework with Laos
and consider measures as appropriate, in full co-ordination with Member States and the Parliament.

Human rights concerns, including religious freedom, were raised in the recent EC-Laos Joint Committee
meeting and it was agreed to set up an Informal Working Group on ‘cooperation in the areas of institution
building and administrative reform, governance and human rights’. The Commission will be able to further
discuss this matter with the Laotian Government in the Informal Working Group and encourage Laos to
undertake additional measures to improve the situation for religious minorities.

(2004/C 84 E/0400)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0240/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject: Huge discount from banks to the ‘Democratici di Sinistra’ party in violation of the principle of free

competition

On 22 December 2003, the banking syndicate providing credit to the Italian political party Democratici di
Sinistra (Democrats of the Left) (cid:1) headed by the Carisbo Bank (San Paolo (cid:1) IMI Group), with a claim of
around EUR 30 million, and also comprising Banca Intesa and Capitalia, each with claims of
EUR 21 million, and Monte dei Paschi di Siena, with a claim of around EUR 3,5 million (cid:1) reached an
agreement on total debt clearance via a settlement transaction providing for the writing-off of 50 % of the
colossal overall debt of EUR 235 million. This huge discount was granted to a political party in precisely
the same period in which shareholders and bondholders in companies with ties to the above-mentioned
banks saw their legitimate interests being damaged and in which the selfsame banks implemented a rigid
policy on overdraft reduction vis-à-vis debtor SMEs.

Would the Commission agree that this privileged treatment, which contrasts with that afforded by many
banks to ‘ordinary’ debtors, constitutes a grave and manifest violation of the principle of free competition
enshrined in Community law?