WRITTEN QUESTION E-2718/99 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council. Russia: case of Dmitry Neverovsky, an imprisoned conscientious objector, tabled on 9 December 1999.
C 303 E/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 (2000/C 303 E/091) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2715/99 by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL) to the Commission Subject: Human rights violations in Iran (18 January 2000) Is the Commission aware of the plight, and in particular the whereabouts, of the students Mehdi Rohani, Halakin, Jazdi, Faghihian, Gholami and Borumand, who were arrested in the town of Isfahan on 28 August the four students who, according to a statement made on 1999, or the names and situation of 12 September 1999 by the presiding judge of the Tehran Revolutionary Tribunal, Mr Rahbarpour, were sentenced to death. Is it prepared to take up these cases and make representations to the Iranian Government, drawing attention to the plight of the detainees, in particular to those sentenced to death? Joint answer to Written Questions E-2713/99, E-2714/99 and E-2715/99 given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (2 February 2000) The Commission follows with concern the issue of human rights in Iran. In the comprehensive dialogue between the Union and Iran, questions regarding human rights are always raised by the Union. This was most recently the case of the meeting of the Troika with the Iranian deputy Foreign Minister in Helsinki on 1 December 1999. The Commission is also involved in the demarches made by the Union to Iran in this respect. A number of demarches were made concerning the 13 Iranian Jews by the Union Troika as well as by individual Member States in the autumn of 1999. A Union Troika demarche regarding the reported death sentences on four students took place on 3 October 1999. The possibilities for the Union to influence the situation in Iran are relatively limited due to the absence of any contractual relationship and the modest level of bilateral exchange. Nevertheless, the Iranian regime remains sensitive to international pressure, as it seeks to improve its ties with the Union and other partners. To be effective, however, such pressure which should be measured, in order not to create an impression of foreign interference. In the case of the 13 Iranian Jews, Iranian representatives have pledged that the detainees will receive a á fair and just í trial. It has even been suggested that they may be released á in the national interest í. Iranian authorities are undoubtedly also aware of the strong negative international reaction that would follow any executions of student leaders. (2000/C 303 E/092) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2718/99 by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council (13 January 2000) Subject: Russia: case of Dmitry Neverovsky, an imprisoned conscientious objector, tabled on 9 December 1999 Dmitry Neverovsky, a 26 year old mathematician from Obninsk in the Kaluga region, declared his conscientious objection in 1997. In October 1999, a criminal prosecution case was brought against him. During the trial, which took place on 24 and 25 November in Obninsk, Mr Neverovsky stated again that he objected to military service as a protest against the war in Chechnya. He was sentenced to two yearsí imprisonment. Apparently, Dmitry Neverovsky is today the only conscientious objector imprisoned in the Russian Federation. The right to conscientious objection and to the replacement of compulsory military service by an alternative civilian service is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 59(3)). This constitutional right (as well as other civil rights and liberties) is directly applicable, according to Articles 15 and 18 of the Constitution, although the Federal law regulating the questions of performing alternative civilian service has not yet been adopted by the State Duma. According to the decision taken by 24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/99 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on 22 May 1996, conscientious objection to military service does not constitute corpus delicti, even in absence of the law on alternative civilian service. Meanwhile, respect for the right of citizens to conscientious objection and the rapid introduction of the alternative civilian service were two of the main conditions for Russiaís being accepted as a Member State of the Council of Europe in 1996. What kind of measures does the Council intend to undertake in order to require the authorities of the Russian Federation to cease the criminal prosecution of Dmitry Neverovsky and the hundreds of Russian conscientious objectors and to respect the constitutionally and internationally guaranteed rights of Russian citizens and the international obligations of the Russian Federation? Reply (10/11 April 2000) The Council took note of the Resolution of the European Parliament of 20 January expressing grave concern at the sentencing of Mr Neverovsky to two years of imprisonment for having protested against the war in Chechnya, as allowed by the Russian constitution. The Presidency asked the Heads of Mission in Moscow to enquire into the case of Mr Neverovsky. Should the allegations be substantiated, the Heads of Mission would, without delay, bring the issue up with the competent Russian authorities. (2000/C 303 E/093) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2727/99 by Ulpu Iivari (PSE) to the Council (13 January 2000) Subject: Right of EU citizens to use their own cars in another Member State One of the fundamental rights of EU citizens is the right to move freely to other Member States of the Union and spend time there. For example, many pensioners from Nordic countries make prolonged temporary visits to other Member States. Many of them wish to use their own cars registered in their home states. However, the national legislation of many Member States restricts the length of time for which a car registered in another Member State may be used. Does the Council propose to take steps to ensure that nationals of one EU country can themselves use their own cars registered in their home country while they are staying in another Member State? Reply (10/11 April 2000) Under the Treaty, the Commission alone is entitled to propose changes to the current situation. So 1. far, no proposal to that effect has been presented by the Commission and, as far as the Council is aware, there is no road traffic proposal in the pipeline. For the time being, then, the Council cannot take any action in this area. As regards taxation, under Directive 83/182/EEC concerning the temporary use of vehicles Member 2. States are obliged to authorise the tax-free temporary use of vehicles for a period, continuous or otherwise, of not more than six months in any twelve months. The Council would also inform the Honourable Member that on 16 February 1998 the Commission 3. adopted a proposal for a Council Directive governing the tax treatment of private motor vehicles moved permanently to another Member State in connection with a transfer of residence or used temporarily in a Member State other than that in which they are registered. That proposal is being examined by Council bodies