You are on page 1of 2


2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 58 E/51

(2004/C 58 E/068) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1205/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Outlawing of the HADEP party in Turkey

The HADEP party has been recently outlawed by the Turkish Constitutional Court which also banned over
40 of its members from any form of political activity over the next five years. In addition, the public
prosecutor has been seeking to outlaw the recently founded DEHAP party.

The HADEP party, under the name DEHAP, gathered two million votes in the most recent Turkish
elections, 6,2 % at national level, while in 12 provinces in the Kurdish areas it came first, achieving 47 % in
Diyarbakir, Batman, Sirnak, Hakkari and Ban.

The European Court of Human Rights has already condemned Turkey for outlawing political parties on
numerous occasions in the past. Last year (Sadak v. Turkey) the Court ruled that this infringed not only the
right of such parties freely to exercise their mandate and their right to freedom of expression, but also the
right of voters to fair and free elections.

In view of the above, will the Commission take action with a view to having this new and unacceptable
measure overturned, given that it prevents parties from freely exercising their mandate and infringes the
right to freedom of expression and representation of millions of Kurds in Turkey?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2003)

The Commission is aware of the situation regarding the HADEP party, and its successor, the DEHAP party.
On 14 March 2003 a Commission spokesperson expressed the concern of the Commission with regard to
the banning of the HADEP party, as the decision appeared to be against the spirit of the current reform
agenda in Turkey.

According to the Turkish authorities, the Turkish Constitutional Court delivered its judgement against the
HADEP party after receiving evidence that the party had explicitly aided and abetted the Kurdistan
Workers’ Party (PKK), which is considered by the Turkish state to be a terrorist organisation.

The Commission notes that, although the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has in the past ruled
against Turkey with regard to the freedom to exercise a parliamentary mandate and the right to freedom of
expression, some cases against Turkey have not been upheld. For example, in the case of the Refah Partisi
(The Welfare Party) and others versus Turkey, the ECHR held that there were ‘convincing and compelling
reasons justifying Refah’s dissolution’ which could be regarded as ‘necessary in a democratic society’.

As a Candidate Country, Turkey aims to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria as well as the priorities
identified by the Accession Partnership. These include the alignment of provisions concerning the freedom
of association with the European Convention on Human Rights and Member State norms. The Commission
will continue to monitor all developments related to the freedom of association in Turkey and intends to
raise this issue in its regular dialogue with the Turkish authorities.

(2004/C 58 E/069) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1225/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: German government aid to workers taking up jobs in other Member States

The Danish newspaper Jyske Vestkysten reported on 15 March that a businessman from Kiel had had the
idea of supplying German workers to Danish firms. This is a shrewd idea in that the German government
C 58 E/52 Official Journal of the European Union EN 6.3.2004

subsidises German workers who take up jobs abroad by approximately DKK 60 an hour. The individual
worker also receives a tax allowance of some DKK 800 a day.

The businessman in question has sent 3 000 e-mails and faxes to Danish firms offering to supply them
with German workers in the building trades at an hourly rate of DKK 120. By way of comparison, a firm
must pay between DKK 175 and 190 an hour for a skilled Danish worker.

The businessman is doing nothing illegal, he is simply exploiting current German law as the system was
introduced by the Federal Institute of Labour. However, this system is severely undermining the Danish
labour market in that it is increasing the pressure on a sector in which unemployment is currently rising.

Germany has, in effect, introduced an unfair system in an attempt to export high German unemployment
to another Member State, in this case Denmark, thereby undermining the Danish system.

In the light of this situation, what does the Commission intend to do to put an end to this arrangement,
which is distorting competition?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2003)

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that it is aware of the fact that employment aid
granted by Member States may have a major impact on competition in the common market, although the
promotion of employment is a central aim for the economic and social policies of the Community and of
its Member States. The Community has developed a European employment strategy in order to promote
this objective and as a legal basis for employment aid to be granted by Member States, the Commission
has adopted Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 of 5 December 2002 on the application of
Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employment (1).

As regards the specific measures mentioned by the Honourable Member, they seem to form part of plans
and measures already put into effect aimed at reforming the German labour market. Some of these
elements are presently under scrutiny by the Commission under State aid law. The Commission will
request the German authorities to provide information on the specific measures addressed by the
Honourable Member and will assess them if appropriate under State aid rules.

(1) OJ L 337, 13.12.2002, corrigendum OJ L 349, 24.12.2002.

(2004/C 58 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1231/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: EC Committee on the Driving Licence

1. Who are the members of the medical working groups established under the auspices of the EC
Committee on the Driving Licence, and what powers or decision-making responsibilities do they have
relative to European policy on the use of bioptic lenses in driving?

2. Can the Commission confirm whether the relevant working group is now established and
functioning, and what the frequency of its meetings is?