Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

Numerous reports have emerged of human rights violations and atrocities allegedly committed by the Croatian police against migrants on the EU border, as well as various disturbing reports from NGOs and in the media that the Commission has yet to make progress with the announced monitoring mechanism intended to ensure that all measures applied at the EU’s external borders are proportionate and in full compliance with fundamental rights and EU asylum laws. Furthermore, recent reports and the disclosure of email exchanges in the Guardian media outlet accuse the Commission of a cover-up for withholding evidence of the Croatian Government’s alleged failure to supervise the police and its mismanagement of EU funds concerning the above monitoring mechanism, the establishment of which was a condition of receiving funds to strengthen Croatia’s borders with non-EU countries. It is stated that the Commission would caution against drawing misleading conclusions and has asked the Croatian authorities for clarifications regarding outstanding issues.

We expect full disclosure of the findings and demand full transparency. 

1. How has the Croatian Government used money earmarked for the border police and which specific organisations have received the funds?

2. Has the Commission received any information from monitoring mechanisms revealing the failure to supervise Croatian police compliance with asylum laws and human rights?

Answer given by Commissioner Johansson on behalf of the European Commission

According to the information in the final implementation report for the action ‘Technical monitoring border control activities’, the Croatian authorities spent EUR 87 567.72, of which EUR 78 810.94 in EU contribution from an emergency assistance grant.

More specifically, EUR 17 469.87 was spent on training activities by the Ministry of Interior, EUR 59 637.91 on cooperation/training with international and civil society organisations (including the Croatian Red Cross (EUR 19 048.74), the International Organisation for Migration (EUR 19 437.98), and the Croatian Law Centre (EUR 21 151.19)), and EUR 1 703.16 on the final roundtable organised by the Ministry of Interior.

The Commission takes any allegations of violence and human rights violations seriously. However, information received by the Commission does not indicate failures to supervise the compliance of the Croatian police with fundamental rights.

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

There are currently 12 Bahraini citizens on death row who have exhausted all legal remedies and are now awaiting only the King’s ratification of their execution. The trials of these individuals did not guarantee their right to due process and clear evidence of coerced confessions and torture were ignored. The human rights situation in Bahrain is highly concerning, as officials who commit the heinous crime of torture enjoy a culture of impunity and face no accountability whatsoever. 

1. What is the current policy of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) to put pressure on the Bahraini Government to commute these death sentences and pardon all Bahrainis who are facing the death penalty?

2. Is the VP/HR willing to impose sanctions against Bahraini officials who have committed severe human rights violations against Bahraini activists and human rights defenders?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Borrell on behalf of the European Commission

The EU systematically raises its concerns related to fair trial, prohibition of torture and the use of death penalty with Bahraini authorities through regular political contacts, including the human rights dialogue, most recently held on 7 November 2019. These exchanges cover also individual cases. In the same vein, the EU Special Representative for Human Rights raised the cases of Bahraini death row inmates Zuhair Ibrahim Jassim Abdullah and Abdullah Kalil Rashid, as well as Mohamed Ramadan and Husain Al Moosa, whose death sentences were upheld on 14 June and 13 July 2020 in final rulings, with his counter-parts.

The EU has also repeatedly expressed its principled position against the death penalty. In several statements, it called on the Bahraini authorities to halt pending executions and establish a moratorium on executions as a first step towards the abolition of the death penalty and to commute all pending death sentences. The EU is committed to promoting efficient, transparent, independent, open and accountable justice systems that are compliant with human rights standards and ensure due process of law. It also encouraged Bahrain to ensure that retrials would be held in accordance with international law and standards.

Regarding EU restrictive measures, it is re-called that any new sanctions regime has to be adopted by the Council by unanimity.

On 6 October 2020, the Commission published its 2020 report providing inter alia for a detailed assessment of Montenegro’s respect of fundamental rights. The Commission will continue to regularly monitor the fulfilment of Montenegro’s commitments in this area.

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

Following the 30 August 2020 parliamentary elections in Montenegro, there was civil unrest and a worrying set of events where people – primarily from the Muslim community – were attacked verbally and physically, hate graffiti appeared and mosques were attacked. The situation was especially worrying in the town of Pljevlja. In that community, there are divisions between the supporters of the current ruling party and the opposition coalition, which won the majority of the votes.

1. Is the Commission aware of the anti-Muslim rhetoric and attacks against the Muslim community that followed the elections in Montenegro?

2. What will it do to safeguard the interests, freedoms and safety of everyone in Montenegro?

Answer given by Commissioner Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission

The Commission is aware of incidents targeting the Muslim community in the run-up to and following the 30 August 2020 parliamentary elections. The Commission expects a thorough investigation and legal follow up, as for all attacks and acts of violence .

As an EU candidate country in accession negotiations, Montenegro is expected to ensure the effective protection of persons belonging to national and religious minorities under negotiating Chapter 23 (judiciary and fundamental rights).

The rule of law is one of the EU’s fundamental values and, as such, a crucial element of the EU accession process, which determines the overall pace of Montenegro’s EU accession negotiations.

Under Chapter 23, Montenegro has to fulfil — among others — a specific benchmark related to strengthening the effective application and enforcement of human rights and alignment of its legal framework with the EU acquis and international human rights standards. This also includes effective protection of minorities and of freedom of religion.

On 6 October 2020, the Commission published its 2020 report providing inter alia for a detailed assessment of Montenegro’s respect of fundamental rights. The Commission will continue to regularly monitor the fulfilment of Montenegro’s commitments in this area.

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission and the Council

In connection with the coronavirus pandemic, the Presidents of the European Council and the Commission issued a communication on 15 April emphasising the European approach in the gradual lifting of restrictions. The measures should be based on scientific knowledge, focused on public health, consistent across the Member States and based on respect and solidarity.

In practice, national measures (based on a traffic-light system) vary widely, which is in breach of the prohibition against discrimination on grounds of nationality (Article 18 TFEU) and of the free movement of EU citizens (Articles 20 and 21 TFEU). Applying the principle of reciprocity, some Member States are treating citizens as an epidemiological risk even if they come from an EU country which, according to the health criteria, does not present an epidemiological risk (e.g. Denmark).

The same country is on the list red for some countries and on the orange or green list for others.

1. Is the Commission aware of such measures and has it examined their conformity with European legislation? Does it intend to take action – and if so, what action – in cases where European law and fundamental principles have been violated?

2. Do such cases qualify as a violation of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and a disproportionate restriction on the freedom of movement of EU citizens?

3. Is arbitrary reciprocity in the application of the traffic-light system compatible with EU law (the Treaties, Directive 2004/38, the EU Charter, etc.)?

Answer given by Commissioner Reynders on behalf of the European Commission

To limit the spread of the virus, the Member States have adopted various measures, some of which have had an impact on Union citizens’ right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, such as restrictions on entry or requirements for cross-border travellers to undergo quarantine.

Restrictions to the free movement of persons within the Union put in place to limit the spread of COVID-19 should be based on specific and limited public interest grounds, namely the protection of public health. They should be applied in compliance with the general principles of EC law, in particular proportionality and non-discrimination.

Unilateral measures in this area have the potential to cause significant disruptions as businesses and citizens are confronted with a wide array of diverging and rapidly changing measures. This is particularly harmful in a situation where the European economy has already been significantly affected by the virus.

This is why the Commission has adopted, on 4 September 2020, a proposal for a Council Recommendation on a coordinated approach to the restriction of free movement in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

A coordinated approach among Member States is required to reduce the impact of restrictions on Union citizens and the economy, enhancing transparency and predictability, while ensuring a high level of human health protection.

The recommendation should not be understood as facilitating or encouraging the adoption of restrictions to free movement put in place in response to the pandemic, but rather seeks to provide a coordinated approach in the event that a Member State were to decide to introduce such restrictions.

Answer given by the Council

The COVID-19 pandemic has obliged all Member States to take unprecedented measures aimed at limiting the transmission of the virus and safeguarding public health. The nature of the measures has varied between Member States, depending on the domestic epidemiological situation as well as on other factors.

It is the responsibility of Member States to adopt appropriate measures such as quarantine requirements, testing specifications and travel restrictions in response to serious cross-border health threats. As pointed out by the Honourable Members, those measures have to be taken in accordance with Union law. It is for the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to monitor such measures and decide on the follow-up.

Throughout the crisis, Ministers with different areas of responsibility have had numerous exchanges, often in the format of videoconferences. Through these exchanges they have discussed the impact of measures taken to protect public health on the four freedoms enshrined in the EU acquis and have stressed the importance of a coordinated approach to ensure transparency and predictability for citizens and businesses.

In particular, extensive discussions have taken place in the Council in the context of the Integrated Political Crisis Response (IPCR) arrangements, both on health measures and on internal as well as external border restrictions.

Finally, it is worth recalling that, on 4 September, the Commission presented a proposal for a Council Recommendation on a coordinated approach to the restriction of free movement in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which is currently being discussed in the Council. Following the proposal of the Commission on 4 September, on 13 October the Council has agreed on EU-wide coordination on measures restricting free movement related to the coronavirus pandemic.

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

On 17 August 2020, the New York Times published an article entitled ‘Taking Hard Line, Greece Turns Back Migrants by Abandoning Them at Sea’. It documents how migrants landing on Greek soil have been forced onto precarious life rafts by the Greek authorities on multiple occasions and dropped at the Turkish-Greek maritime border, leaving them to drift until they are rescued by the Turkish authorities. Others have been towed back to the Turkish maritime border and abandoned after the authorities disabled their engines, left on an uninhabited island or expelled across the Evros River without legal recourse.

Is the Commission aware of these events and can it confirm that they are taking place?

Given the reliability of the newspaper, we believe that the Greek authorities are engaging in unprecedented, extremely aggressive and systematic push-backs, and are thus contravening European Union law, namely Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Articles 3 and 4 of the EU Schengen Borders Code, Article 9 of the Asylum Procedures Directive, Article 5 of the Return Directive, Articles 18, 19(2) and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the 1951 Refugee Convention. Asylum and migration are a shared EU responsibility. Is the Commission therefore considering opening an infringement procedure against the Greek Government?

Answer given by Commissioner Johansson on behalf of the European Commission

The Commission is following the situation closely and has taken note of reports such as those cited by the Honourable Members.

The Commission has raised concerns over such reports with the Hellenic authorities and underlined Member States’ responsibility to perform duties of border surveillance under the regulation (EU) 2016/399 on the Schengen Borders Code in full compliance with obligations related to fundamental rights, access to international protection and the principle of non-refoulement under Union and international law.

Without prejudice to the Commission’s powers as guardian of the Treaties, national authorities are primarily responsible for implementing and applying correctly EC law. Therefore, the Commission has urged the Hellenic authorities to investigate any alleged misconduct.

With the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, in particular the proposal for a regulation introducing a screening of third-country nationals at the external borders, the Commission has proposed that Member States establish an independent monitoring mechanism with the support of the Fundamental Rights Agency.

Such a monitoring mechanism would ensure compliance with EU and international law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, during the screening and that allegations of non-respect for fundamental rights, including in relation to access to the asylum procedure and non-compliance with the principle of non-refoulement, are dealt with effectively and without undue delay.

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced a total halt to the shooting of European audiovisual productions, and the sector is still suffering from difficulties. Although measures to ease the lockdowns are allowing activities to gradually resume, insurance companies are not reimbursing the risks linked to COVID-19, putting film crews in a delicate financial situation.

This poses not only an economic problem, but also a cultural one. When cinemas reopen, Europe’s audiovisual offer will be reduced in favour of films benefiting from integrated insurance solutions, most of which are from the US. There is therefore a risk of a major imbalance in the works shown to Europeans.

While the Member States are progressing at a different pace to ensure the resumption of filming and cultural activities, the Commission has identified 14 priority ecosystems for recovery, including the cultural and creative industries.

1. In this context, does the Commission envisage the introduction of a specific instrument to alleviate the insurance difficulties encountered by the audiovisual production sector and ensure the resumption of filming?

2. From a cultural point of view, how does the Commission envisage responding to the lack of new productions that will be caused by this period of cessation of activity?

Answer given by Commissioner Breton on behalf of the European Commission

The Commission has put forward a major recovery plan proposal composed of a new recovery instrument, Next Generation EU, and a revamped Multiannual Financial Framework. Several instruments contained in this package could specifically support the European audiovisual production sector, in various ways.

Furthermore, on 29 July 2020, as announced in recent months, the Commission adopted adjustments to the Cultural and Creative Sectors Guarantee Facility to which the European production small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can also apply. Concretely, the new measures will encourage financial intermediaries to offer more flexible conditions such as longer repayment periods or temporary credit interruptions.

The Commission is aware of the costs associated to halting shootings due to the COVID-19 crisis. While acknowledging the relevance of insurance support to resume productions, the Commission does not envisage establishing a specific instrument at EU level to cover these costs.

Production support rests primarily at national and regional level. Therefore, Member States could use some of the instruments under the Next Generation EU recovery package to put in place compensation funds and support resuming audiovisual production, thereby addressing the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 crisis.

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all aspects of our lives, including the cultural one.

While countries are slowly easing restrictions on movement and socializing, it remains unknown how long it will take before we return to normal life. Epidemiologists also warn us that a second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic could follow in late autumn, leading to the reintroduction of travel restrictions.

We must acknowledge that the situation this year is not in favor of European Capitals of Culture. The planned cultural events had to be postponed, and those who intended to attend them had to cancel their plans. In the current circumstances, we can expect tourism to revive in July, but we do not yet know how it will be in autumn and winter.

1. How does the Commission intend to address this situation?

2. Is it considering postponing the European Capital of Culture program for the whole year due to this year’s uncertainty regarding the restoration of normal life, travel and cultural events?

3. How will this affect future capitals of culture? Can the Commission consider canceling this year’s European Capitals of Culture program and relaunching it next year, thus moving the planned capitals forward for a year?

Answer given by Commissioner Maria Gabriel on behalf of the European Commission

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission has been in regular contact with the organizers of both European Capitals of Culture 2020 (Rijeka and Galway) as well as with the organizers of all future European Capitals of Culture in 2021-2023. The Commission is therefore fully aware of the dramatic consequences of the pandemic for the implementation and preparation of cultural activities in the years they are titled.

The two European Capitals of Culture 2020, Rijeka and Galway, have had to postpone or cancel their events since mid-March 2020, not knowing if and when the situation will return to normal. The pandemic has also caused a great deal of uncertainty in the preparation of the three European Capitals of Culture for 2021 (uncertain funding opportunities, unknown safety regulations or possible travel restrictions). The cities that will carry this title in 2022 and 2023 are feeling less of the impact, as they still have time to rethink their programs and consider different future scenarios.

The Commission, together with the relevant ministries and organizational teams of the European Capitals of Culture 2020, 2021 and 2022, is examining the best ways to mitigate the effects of the pandemic on the implementation and preparation of cultural activities during their title years.

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

The European news media sector has been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is particularly worrying given the crucial role of these media for society and democracy. In some markets, the economic outlook has reduced advertising by 80%, leading to the collapse of some smaller and local newspapers in particular. Other media outlets were forced into layoffs and pay cuts.

How does the Commission intend to safeguard the diverse and pluralistic news media environment in Europe?

Answer given by Commissioner Thierry Breton on behalf of the European Commission

Recognizing the serious consequences of the coronavirus crisis for the news media sector, the Commission in its Communication on Combating COVID-19 misinformation – what is true and what is not, called on Member States to step up their efforts to ensure the safety of journalists and recognized the news media as an essential service.

The Commission will continue to co-finance independent projects in the fields of journalism, media freedom and pluralism, while proposing a comprehensive recovery plan consisting of a new EU Next Generation Recovery Instrument and a renewed Multiannual Financial Framework.

The news sector can be supported by several instruments from this package, including in particular the Creative Europe program with a dedicated budget under the cross-sectoral strand on media freedom, pluralism and collaborative journalism, the Digital Europe program, the InvestEU program and the Recovery and Resilience Mechanism, cohesion policy funds and REACT-EU.

In addition, as part of its short-term response, the Commission, together with the European Investment Fund, has increased the flexibility of the existing guarantee instrument for the cultural and creative sectors to further encourage financial institutions to lend money to the news media. These new support options are available on the market from August 2020 and will be applied retroactively to loans maturing from 1 April 2020.

Finally, by the end of 2020, the Commission will adopt an Action Plan for European Democracy and a dedicated action plan for the media and audiovisual sector, which will include targeted measures to support the news media sector and media freedom and pluralism.

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

Organizations participating in the European Solidarity Unit face problems such as the administrative burden and the different treatment of volunteers due to inconsistencies in the way European national agencies interpret and implement the rules and guidelines. The current crisis has increased the costs of European Solidarity Unit projects, which meet the needs of society, promote the well-being of volunteers and ensure the sustainability of organizations. Can the Commission explain how it will adapt the program to the situation resulting from the pandemic?

1. Will it adopt harmonized guidelines for national agencies on how to respond to a pandemic and require them to properly inform all stakeholders and implement the new rules and procedures in the same way?

2. Will it recognize that the additional costs associated with coronavirus pandemic measures are justified and increase the project budget accordingly, and will it ensure that organizations receive the initial amount earmarked for administrative costs and organizational support despite activities being suspended due to the pandemic?

3. Will it allow online volunteering and increase the number of volunteers within countries so that new projects can be implemented as long as travel and socializing restrictions apply, so that the European Solidarity Unit can serve the current and future needs of the community?

Answer given by Commissioner Maria Gabriel on behalf of the European Commission

The Commission has provided the National Agencies and the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) with a detailed set of guidelines explaining the emergency measures that project beneficiaries can take to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Commission is in close contact with the National Agencies and the EACEA to ensure the best possible implementation of the guidelines issued. In this regard, the Commission needs to find the right balance between the necessary degree of consistency in all countries and the urgent need to comply with the various COVID-19 measures in each country introduced by national governments.

The Commission shall use the greatest possible flexibility in the implementation of the program within the limits of the applicable legal framework. It issued guidelines that financial support granted under the European Solidarity Entity will continue to be provided in all cases where activities have been suspended, terminated or canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This very flexible approach provides support for additional costs up to the maximum amounts approved for projects.

The Commission encourages project coordinators to carry out activities within the country, pas long as they remain within the legal basis of a maximum of 20% of available budget for such activities. The Commission has also recently issued guidelines to enable participants in the European Solidarity Force to start their activities by virtual tools.

/0 Comments/by

Parliamentary question

Written question to the European Commission

The Constitutional Court of North Macedonia repealed the Law on Prevention and Protection from Discrimination, which had been adopted in May 2019, due to the failure to meet formal procedural requirements. The key achievement of this law was the prohibition of any discrimination based on race, origin, nationality or ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, and crucially, it included sexual orientation and gender identity. Repealing the law has therefore stripped vulnerable groups of the protection they deserve.

1. In the context of EU enlargement, what has been the reaction of the Commission and the EU Delegation in Skopje?

2. How will the Commission engage with local authorities in North Macedonia to support the timely adoption of the necessary legal provisions and establishment of functional institutions that enshrine, in law and practice, fundamental EU values (including the principle of non-discrimination), which are a pre-condition for advancing the EU accession process?

Answer given by Commissioner Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission

The European Commission is committed to promoting prevention and protection from discrimination in the EU accession process.

The legal framework and the establishment of functional institutions are a cornerstone of the Commission’s dialogue with the Republic of North Macedonia in the context of the Stabilisation and Association Process and in its monitoring of progress under Chapter 23.

The EU acquis on non-discrimination was presented to the authorities of North Macedonia in September 2018. Regular dialogue with the relevant non-governmental organisations takes place both at headquarters and in the EU Delegation in Skopje.

As a candidate country for EU accession, North Macedonia is required to gradually align its legal framework with the EU acquis with a view to achieving full alignment before joining the EU. In this context, the Commission recommends to the authorities to swiftly re-adopt the Law on the Prevention and Protection against Discrimination, ensuring it is in line with the EU acquis and European standards on non-discrimination.

The Commission recommends that provisions of the previously adopted law, including the list of protected grounds, be preserved and that the Commission for Prevention and Protection against Discrimination be established.

/0 Comments/by