Parliamentary questions
3 March 2011 E-001808/2011
Question for written answer
to the Council
Rule 117
Marietje Schaake (ALDE)
Subject: Scope of EU‑imposed asset freezes
With reference to the article http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=22362AVH
The freezing of assets owned or controlled by persons, or persons associated with them, deemed responsible or accountable for violations of fundamental rights and/or corruption is an instrument that is regularly used for the imposition of targeted economic sanctions as a part of the EU's CFSP.
Recently, asset freezes have been imposed — in accordance with two resolutions(1) of the European Parliament — regarding persons deemed responsible for grave human rights violations in Belarus and persons deemed responsible for the misappropriation of state funds in Tunisia. Despite sanctions, several of these human rights violators have taken up residence inside the EU, e.g. around the Avenue Foch in Paris or on the Côte d'Azur in the South of France. As both the former Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and the Egyptian President Hosni Muburak are the owners of real estate in Paris, the following questions have arisen:
1. Does the Council have a list of real estate owned by (former) dictators on European soil? If so, can this list be made available? If not, why not?
2. Do EU‑imposed asset freezes include real estate and other non-capital possessions in the EU? If not, why not?
3. Does the Council agree that in order to improve the EU's impact in condemning human rights violations and to optimise protection of victims of human rights violations, the maximum effectiveness of asset freezes and all other economic sanctions should be ensured? If not, why not?
4. Does the Council agree that bringing real estate and other non-capital assets into the scope of EU‑imposed asset freezes would substantially increase the effectiveness of this form of targeted economic sanctions? If not, why not?
5. Does the Council agree that the freezing of real estate and non-capital possessions as a part of asset freezes is a logical addition to, for instance, EU‑imposed visa bans? If not, why not?
6. Does the Council agree that former presidents, heads of state or high-ranking officials deemed responsible or accountable for violations of fundamental rights and/or corruption should not be allowed to enjoy their retirement inside the EU without having been held accountable for their crimes? If not, why not?
Please find the answer here.
