WRITTEN QUESTION P-0241/00 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Council. Cost for Greece of implementing the Schengen Agreement.
Date: 2000-02-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Greece, Schengen Agreement, application of EU law

24.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303 E/165

(2000/C 303 E/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0241/00

by Ioannis Mar(cid:237)nos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Cost for Greece of implementing the Schengen Agreement

Over the last few years Greece has persistently endeavoured to set up the infrastructure necessary for the
implementation of the Schengen Agreement: it has notably set up the (cid:145)Border Guard Service(cid:146), strengthened
its border services by recruiting an additional 756 police officers and its Port Police by recruiting a further
500 officers and port guards and ordered and purchased high-tech equipment. In particular, the Greek
state has equipped its services with portable heat detection cameras to monitor the borders, photophone-
type image teletransmission apparatuses to detect forged documents, binocular systems for night observa-
tion and surveillance and apparatuses for the mechanical processing of travel documents. It has also taken
delivery of speedboats from Sweden and the USA and sophisticated four-wheel drive jeep-type vehicles in
order more effectively to monitor the hundreds of kilometres of land and sea borders it shares with non-
EU and non-Schengen countries. Greece has thus already equipped itself with, or ordered, very expensive
high-tech systems and instruments in order to meet its obligations, since its neighbours are all non-EU
countries and some of these (Turkey and Albania) are sources of large numbers of illegal immigrants. It
should be pointed out that some countries which are also parties to the Schengen Agreement, such as
Luxembourg, have not only not incurred any additional cost since the entry into force of this Agreement,
but actually face less of a financial burden than before, since they have withdrawn the security forces
which used to be at the borders of other countries which are now (cid:145)Schengen states(cid:146) to the interior.

In view of the above, will the Council say whether the Schengen Agreement countries have received any
funding to furnish themselves with the necessary equipment, whether Greece has made any official request
to the EU in this connection and, if aid has been provided, what is the extent of this aid?

Reply

(10/11 April 2000)

Member States applying the Schengen acquis have not received financial assistance from the Community
to implement the measures required at their borders by the Schengen Convention. This is also true for the
period when, before the Amsterdam Treaty come into force, Schengen cooperation was governed by
decision-making procedures external to the Union.

The matter of financial compensation was raised, in particular by Greece, during the negotiations with
those States that joined the Schengen group after the Schengen Convention was signed in 1990, but it was
established that no such financial compensation was provided for therein.

Since the incorporation of the Schengen acquis into the Union framework the Council has not received
any request from Greece for compensation. It should, however, be noted that the Tampere European
Council called for closer cooperation and technical assistance between the services controlling Member
States(cid:146) borders, in particular in the form of exchange and technological transfer programmes, especially at
sea borders, and for the applicant countries to be involved in such cooperation without delay.

(2000/C 303 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0246/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2000)

Subject: Increase in the premium for the Kaba Koulak classic group of tobacco varieties

During the 1992 revision of the tobacco regime the Kaba Koulak classic group of tobacco varieties
(group VIII) was unfairly treated, since while this tobacco was considered to be of exceptional quality and
exceptionally in demand, the premium was set at the same level as that for group V varieties which receive
the least aid.