# CE2004078EN.01070101.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/701 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/701

---

(2004/C 78 E/0749)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0450/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(19 February 2003)

Subject:   Reception centres and ‘human traffickers’

Subject:

‘The Pendeli reception centre in Greece: tin shacks awash in a sea of rubbish and sewage, ... 80 kilometres from Athens, a camp run by Doctors of the World, an NGO which is doing everything possible to help the desperate immigrants in Greece — in vain. The influx of desperate people becomes larger every day. Afghans, Iraqis and Kurds arrive in Turkey and from there move on to Greece, where they have to pay the “mafia” at least USD 2 500 in order to continue their journey. They hide in lorries carried on fast ships or in “coffin boats”. At least 15 thousand foreigners have passed through this camp and all of them have only one idea in their heads: to reach the real Europe’ (the 6 February 2003 edition of Panorama). ‘The voyage of hope of Turkish Kurds starts in Istanbul and takes various directions ... They might travel through the Balkans in lorries or on foot, until they reach Italy, or to Kosovo and Albania, from where they travel to Italy on rafts, or on shabby old vessels from Izmir to the Calabrian coast. Or there is the “new route” by air to Tunisia, where they embark on fishing boats bound for Sicily. Whatever the chosen route, the “fare” is between EUR 3 000 and 6 000, depending on the final destination, amounting to a turnover of EUR 18 million in two years. The price is paid in cash in Turkey’ (from the same edition of Panorama). These two excerpts from the Italian weekly magazine are ample evidence of the degrading, miserable, degenerate and barbaric conditions in certain reception centres, devoid of even minimal respect for human dignity, and the fact that there are obviously criminal organisations of ‘human traffickers’ who greedily exploit the desperation of these refugees.

Can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether the existence of these camps in a Member State and the conditions there have anything to do with the provisions on immigration set out in the Schengen agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the existence of these camps in a Member State and the conditions there have anything to do with the provisions on immigration set out in the Schengen agreement;

| 2. | what instruments the Union has at its disposal to prevent the degradation of the camps and criminal exploitation from making the immigrants' existence even more barbaric and totally destroying their human dignity; |
| --- | --- |

2.

what instruments the Union has at its disposal to prevent the degradation of the camps and criminal exploitation from making the immigrants' existence even more barbaric and totally destroying their human dignity;

| 3. | whether it does not consider it necessary and appropriate to prevail upon the government of a country which is a candidate for accession to bring its legislation on immigration into line with that of the much-vaunted European Union, in order to ensure that phenomena such as those described cannot occur with impunity on its territory? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether it does not consider it necessary and appropriate to prevail upon the government of a country which is a candidate for accession to bring its legislation on immigration into line with that of the much-vaunted European Union, in order to ensure that phenomena such as those described cannot occur with impunity on its territory?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

(15 May 2003)

In accordance with the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the Union, Member States must expel persons who do not fulfil or no longer fulfil the short-stay conditions applicable, where they have not left voluntarily, where it may be assumed that they will not do so or where their immediate departure is required for reasons of national security or public policy. For the purpose of implementing these provisions, Member States may hold illegal residents or require them to reside within a certain area.

As mentioned in the reply to Written Question E-431/03 by Mrs Poli Bortone (1), the Council adopted on 28 February 2002, following a Commission's Communication on a common policy on illegal immigration of 15 November 2001 (2), an action plan on illegal immigration (3). Moreover, the Council adopted on 13 June 2002 a plan for the management of the external borders of the Member States, which is also based on a Commission's Communication on the subject of 7 May 2002 (4). Proper implementation of these measures may reduce irregular flows and thus, in the long term, diminish the burden on centres or camps as described in the question.

1

2

3

4

Moreover, it has to be stressed that if the persons in question would have applied or would apply for asylum in Greece, that there are no Community provisions, based on Article 63 of the EC Treaty in place yet, that would allow the Commission to take any action, such as requesting further information from the Greek authorities.

The Council has adopted Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003, laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (5), but these provisions still need to be transposed by the Member States. The Directive aims to improve substantially the reception conditions for asylum seekers at least in some Member States. The principle that destitute asylum seekers, who are allowed to stay in the country to await the outcome of procedures, are entitled to reception conditions (including housing, food, clothing and a daily expenses allowance) has been accepted by all Member States (nevertheless reception conditions may be excluded if an application for asylum is presented later than as soon as reasonably practicable). In all Member States, asylum seekers will be entitled to proper health care, information and documentation, schooling and, in a limited number of cases, access to the labour market. In addition, Member States would commit themselves to ensuring appropriate guidance, monitoring and control of the standard of reception conditions. The deadline for transposition is 6 February 2005.

5

In this framework, it is also worth noting that the Greek authorities are investing most of their European Refugee Fund (ERF) funding in upgrading and enhancing the reception capacity for asylum seekers. Since 1998 several non-governmental organisations (NGO's) have been able to develop and ensure the provision of accommodation and food for asylum seekers in Greece (‘inter alia’ in the Aspropyrgos Center run by EL.IN.AS, the accommodation center in Nea Makri run by the Greek Red Cross and the night shelter for asylum seekers at the Centre of Athens run by Médecins du Monde).

Turkey, as a Candidate Country, has an Accession Partnership and has adopted a National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis (NPAA). The NPAA naturally provides for Turkey gradually to bring its legislation and practices on migration, asylum and border management into line with the acquis. In 2002, the Turkish authorities established inter-departmental working groups on migration, asylum and border management, which were charged with drawing up strategies setting out in more detail the plan for aligning with the acquis in these areas. The strategies on migration and border management are about to be published. Moreover, the Turkish authorities have decided to draw up Action Plans for migration, asylum and border management which will set out a detailed schedule for legislative alignment, institutional reform, training and investment with a view to aligning with the acquis. The drawing up and implementation of these Action Plans will be supported by the Commission through two ‘twinnings’, which will start later in 2003. Moreover, in June 2002, the Commission and Turkey opened discussion on a special Action Plan on illegal migration and it is hoped to conclude negotiations on this plan shortly.

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 24.

1

(2)  COM(2001) 672 final.

2

(3)  OJ C 142, 14.6.2002.

3

(4)  COM(2002) 233 final.

4

(5)  OJ L 31, 6.2.2003.

5

---