You are on page 1of 3

C 192 E/88 Official Journal of the European Union EN 14.8.


(2003/C 192 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2968/02

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Open competition COM/A/6/01  Administrators (A7/A6) in the fields of external relations and
management aid to non-member countries

Could the Commission answer the following points regarding the recruitment competition COM/A/6/01
and in particular specify:

 How many candidates were finally included in the reserve list?

 How many citizens from each Member State were finally included in the reserve list?

 How many candidates that have or have had a contract with the European Commission or any other
EU Institution came to the interview (exam f)?

 How many candidates that have or have had a contract with the European Commission or any other
EU Institution were finally included in the reserve list (Please specify for each Member State.)?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

Following the interim reply given by the Commission to the Honourable Member on 6 December 2002,
answers to the last two points in his questions are:

 Field 01 (external relations):

 122 candidates were called to the oral test exam (f). Of these, 16 had or have had contracts with
the Commission,
 Their breakdown by Member State is as follows: Austria: 2, Italy: 1, Germany: 8, France: 1,
Spain: 1, UK: 1, Ireland: 1, Belgium: 1,
 Of the 80 successful candidates, 12 had or have had contracts with the Commission,
 Their breakdown by Member State is as follows: Austria: 2, Italy: 1, Germany: 7, France: 1,
Spain: 1;

 Field 02 (management of aid to non-member countries):

 357 candidates were called to the oral test exam (f). Of these, 86 had or have had contracts with
the Commission,
 Their breakdown by Member State is as follows: Italy: 16, France: 8, Belgium: 12, Germany: 7,
Spain: 14, UK: 8, Finland: 4, Greece: 5, Netherlands: 5, Sweden: 1, Austria: 4, Ireland: 2,
 Of the 250 successful candidates, 59 had or have had contracts with the Commission,
 Their breakdown by Member State is as follows: Italy: 10, Greece: 3, Spain: 12, UK: 7, Austria: 4,
Belgium: 6, France: 4, Ireland: 2, Netherlands: 4, Germany: 5, Sweden: 1, Finland: 1.

(2003/C 192 E/088) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3004/02

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Legal safeguards for the victim, mobility of citizens, and rape victims in the EU

A Finnish national has written from Greece about her experience when she toured the country in 1999.
The rape victim concerned had managed to memorise the registration number of her attacker’s car and
14.8.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 192 E/89

passed on the information to the police on the night of the attack. An examination by a Greek doctor
confirmed that she had been raped. On the following day she again recounted the events before a
magistrate, and the examination minutes were drawn up in Greek with the assistance of an interpreter. She
did not receive copies of the indictment or the examination minutes. In February of this year she was
summoned to appear in court, but the person accused in the trial was the victim herself  on the grounds
of perjury. The rapist had been acquitted of the rape charge in October 2000, but the victim was not
informed and consequently had no possibility of appeal at that time. In April the victim was found guilty
of perjury and sentenced to a 20-month unconditional prison term. The case described is an isolated
example but presumably reflects the prevailing practice.

Does the difference in Member States’ judicial customs constitute such an obstacle to the freedoms created
for citizens in the EU that those freedoms cannot be considered real in practice? How could the position of
rape victims be improved through joint action in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

1. On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, it would seem that the right to
defence of the woman involved in the case as laid out by Article 6(3) the European Convention on Human
Rights (ECHR) and by Article 48(2) of the Union Charter of Fundamental Rights has been violated, and that
she would have a cause of action at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on the facts as
outlined. Article 6(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides for the right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to have adequate time to prepare one’s defence, to
defend oneself either in person or through counsel, to examine the prosecution witnesses and finally to
have the free assistance of an interpreter. The Commission is preparing an initiative that should result in
common minimum standards of procedural safeguards being set for defendants in criminal proceedings
throughout the entire Union. A Green Paper on the subject will be published in January 2003 and a
proposal for a Framework Decision is planned for December 2003.

2. Violations of fundamental rights, such as the one described above, can, in certain cases have a
negative effect on the exercise by Union citizens of their right to free movement throughout the Union.
The issue of how to better ensure that Member States respect fundamental rights should be addressed.

3. As regards victims’ rights, the Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the
standing of victims in criminal proceedings (1) will very much improve the situation of all victims of crime
in the Union, including rape victims. The aim of the Framework Decision is to lay down requirements for
the Member States to improve the services on offer to victims of crime. The improvements suggested
include making better information available to crime victims, recognising their role in criminal
proceedings, making safeguards available to them and to their families and increasing their options
generally. This will include enabling victims to participate more fully in the criminal proceedings affecting
them (giving them ‘a real and appropriate’ role in proceedings) so that a situation such as this where the
victim was not given the opportunity to testify nor informed of the outcome should no longer occur.
Other provisions include giving victims the chance of victim-offender mediation if they so wish, ensuring
that their privacy is protected and special provisions for victims falling within the most vulnerable groups
and victims resident in another Member State. It also lays down safeguards ensuring effective
communication, to be comparable to those offered to defendants, legal aid and other sorts of advice to
be provided free where warranted and, where victims participate in legal proceedings, reimbursement of
their expenses. The Framework Decision also guarantees the right of protection, to include the victim’s
family if necessary and the right to a decision on compensation within the context of the criminal
proceedings. Article 11 specifically provides that Member States should minimise the difficulties faced by
victims resident in a Member State different from the one in which the offence occurred and Article 12
provides that Member States must cooperate with each other. Most of the provisions are to be
C 192 E/90 Official Journal of the European Union EN 14.8.2003

implemented by 22 March 2002. Articles 5 and 6, communication safeguards and specific assistance to the
victim, are to be implemented by 22 March 2004. Article 10, penal mediation in the course of criminal
proceedings, is to be implemented by 22 March 2006.

(1) OJ L 82, 22.3.2001.

(2003/C 192 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3031/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Very worrying plight of Mr Mohamed Kamel Hamzaoui

According to reliable sources, including the World Organisation Against Torture, Mr Hamzaoui, who is a
former member of the RCD Central Committee and a former mayor of Kasserine, has been sentenced to
several terms of imprisonment by the Tunisian courts. After spending more than 10 months at the Charles
Nicole Hospital in Tunis for health reasons, he was transferred by the police to the Tunis civil prison on
17 August 2002. Following a stroke Mr Hamzaoui has serious mobility problems, very poor eyesight and
an oedema in one arm. His very high blood pressure also shows that he urgently needs proper treatment.
On 28 September 2002 the Tunis civil prison staff informed Mr Hamzaoui’s family, who had come to visit
him, that he had been transferred to the police hospital at Marsa. Since that date the family has not been
able to see him or even send him a blanket and food. According to a reliable source the doctors who
reputedly examined him at the police hospital apparently told him that the Charles Nicole Hospital would
be more suitable to provide the care that he needs.

Is the Commission aware of the very worrying plight of Mr Hamzaoui? Has the Commission made
representations to the Tunisian authorities for Mr Hamzaoui to be released on humanitarian grounds and,
pending his release, to receive without hindrance the medical treatment he needs and visits from his
family? More generally, does the Commission not feel that the persecution affecting Mr Hamzaoui, as a
member of the RCD, the party of the President-dictator Ben Ali, is evidence of a disturbing increase in the
Tunisian regime’s desperate efforts to stay in power?

Answer from Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2002)

The Commission would like to thank the honourable Member of Parliament for drawing its attention to
the plight of Mr Mohamed Kamel Hamzaoui, about whom it has received information.

In the case of Mr Hamzaoui and other detainees, the matter at issue is prison conditions in Tunisia.
A number of testimonies collected during recent months paint an extremely negative picture. Moreover, at
a recent meeting of the EU-Tunisia Association Committee, the European Union called upon the
authorities to cooperate with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), whose intervention
concerning prison conditions in Tunisia would be particularly welcomed.

On a different level, the Commission is working towards the modernisation of the Tunisian justice system,
by means of a programme in preparation in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean Association
Agreements (MEDA).

The European Union, with the help of its heads of mission in Tunis, will continue to take the necessary
steps in order to improve the human rights situation in Tunisia.