# CE2004078EN.01009701.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/97

---

(2004/C 78 E/0097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2241/03

by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) and Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject:   Funding of enforced return measures

Subject:

In its communication (1), entitled ‘Integrating migration issues in the European Union's relations with third countries’, the European Commission refers to the possibility of establishing ‘financial instruments designed to provide back-up to a return policy’ and states that such a move ‘would necessarily have to involve a reallocation of some of the European Refugee Fund's appropriations given the reduced margin of manoeuvre in the financial perspective for internal policies’. This would ‘result in a corresponding reduction of the amount of finance available for the genuine solidarity effort which shaped the establishment of the Fund’.

1

In its communication of 11 June 2003 (2) the European Commission proposes, as a replacement for budget Article B7-667, a programme of financial assistance for third countries in the sphere of migration and asylum. According to the proposal, the measures which the Commission is seeking to support by means of this programme do not include enforced returns.

2

In Conclusion 23 of the Thessaloniki Summit of 20 June 2003 the European Commission is invited to examine the possibility of appropriating funds under Heading 3 of the financial perspective (internal policies) with a view to financing an enforced return policy for third-country nationals illegally resident in the EU.

| 1. | Does the Commission regard the financing of an enforced return policy as consistent with the subsidiarity principle, given that as yet no European minimum standards have been laid down stipulating who may legally reside in a Member State (as a refugee or migrant) and who may not? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission regard the financing of an enforced return policy as consistent with the subsidiarity principle, given that as yet no European minimum standards have been laid down stipulating who may legally reside in a Member State (as a refugee or migrant) and who may not?

| 2. | Given that the release of resources to finance an enforced return policy must not be carried out at the expense of solidarity in connection with the reception, integration and voluntary return of refugees (the aims of the European Refugee Fund), where in Chapter B5-8/under Heading 3 does the Commission propose to find appropriations to finance an enforced return policy? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Given that the release of resources to finance an enforced return policy must not be carried out at the expense of solidarity in connection with the reception, integration and voluntary return of refugees (the aims of the European Refugee Fund), where in Chapter B5-8/under Heading 3 does the Commission propose to find appropriations to finance an enforced return policy?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

(16 September 2003)

In its Communication on a Community return policy on illegal residents of 10 October 2002 (3), which was tabled to prepare a Return Action Programme as requested by the Seville European Council in June 2002, the Commission highlighted the need for a common approach to return of illegal residents. In order to be effective, a common return policy must fit smoothly into a genuine management of migration issues, requiring clear consolidation of legal immigration channels and of the situation of legal immigrants, an effective and humane asylum system based on rapid procedures offering access to true protection for those needing it and enhanced dialogue with third countries. The development of a common return policy of illegal immigrants should be built upon a number of actions in the short and medium terms, such as enhanced operational co-operation between Member States based on common co-ordination and — where necessary — legislative adjustments. As recently confirmed in the Communication on the development of a common policy on illegal immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external borders and the return of illegal residents of 3 June 2003 (4), the Commission intends to take the initiative to prepare a proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards for return procedures and mutual recognition of return decisions. The Commission further suggests that consideration could be given to a financial instrument, which might cover voluntary return, forced return and support for return of irregular migrants in transit countries.

3

4

As regards forced returns, it was suggested that a financial assistance scheme — strictly limited to illegal residents — could include, amongst measures aimed at improving cooperation among Member States, financial support for enforcement measures linked to such cooperation operations. This element could contribute to enhancing greater solidarity and burden-sharing between Member States on return, with regard, for example, to travel costs for returnees and escorts.

The Commission clearly presented in its Communication of 3 June 2003 the financial implications linked to the development of a common policy on illegal immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external borders and the return of illegal residents. The Commission also outlined the difficulties of finding an appropriate level of resources under the current financial perspectives. The Commission, however, stated its willingness to examine, in agreement with the budgetary authority and in accordance with the principles governing the use of the budget, the possibility of using part of the margin available for internal policies under heading 3 of the Financial Perspective to cover part of the resources necessary to the development of the Visa Information System (VIS), a burden-sharing mechanism on the management of external borders as well as an integrated return programme. This process could also include the examination of possible reallocations from instruments which already partly cover operations relating to return, such as the European Refugee Fund. However, given the uncertainty which affects the budgetary margin, in particular should current forecasts of growth levels and inflation prove not to be correct, the level of resources available may not allow the implementation of all these initiatives in the short term. It cannot be ruled out that, for these reasons, the introduction of an integrated return programme may have to be deferred until the adoption of the post-2006 new financial perspectives.

The Commission is currently in the process of determining what specific concrete follow-up it will suggest as a consequence of the Thessaloniki European Council conclusions, of 19 and 20 June 2003 in particular Nos 17 and 18. The Commission will report back on this subject by the end of 2003 as requested by the European Council.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 703.

1

(2)  COM(2003)355.

2

(3)  COM(2002) 564 final.

3

(4)  COM(2003) 323 final.

4

---