WRITTEN QUESTION E-1210/00 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Turkish illegal immigrants.
Date: 2000-04-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Türkiye, common foreign and security policy, illegal migration

C 53 E/100

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

Does the Commission advocate a quota policy for the production of apples in the European Union as
3.
a means of providing a structural solution to the crisis in the apple growing sector? If so, when and in
what way will the Commission draw up a quota scheme? If not, why does the Commission reject a quota
policy as a structural solution to the apple crisis, and what alternative approach does it advocate?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2000)

1.
The Commission is also aware that apple prices have generally been lower during the 1999/2000
marketing year than in the previous marketing year. Prices are, however, roughly the same as in the
trend is largely attributable to the relatively high level of
1997/1998 marketing year. This overall
Community production (almost 8,5 million tonnes, i.e. about 10 % more than the average for the last
few marketing years). This figure conceals a degree of variation by Member State, however: for example,
Belgian apple production amounted to almost 550 000 tonnes in 1999, i.e. 30 % more than the average
for the previous marketing years. Against this background, Community production of the Jonagold variety
has likewise reached record levels at over 900 000 tonnes. Producer prices for Belgian apples, and
particularly for the Jonagold variety, are therefore logically lower than usual.

In such circumstances, producers are able to call on several types of financial

2.
instrument under
Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in
fruit and vegetables (1). Producer organisations may decide to implement the intervention arrangements
through market withdrawals, the aim of which is to support prices for products remaining on the market.
Also, the operational funds provide producer organisations with considerable public financial resources
improvements. These measures have been devised to enable
which they can use to make structural
producer organisations, which account for 70 % of fruit and vegetable production in Belgium, to deal with
short-term crises and to take steps that will improve their competitiveness.

This framework therefore provides apple producers with adequate instruments through which to alleviate
the effects of the short-term production crisis. It is not necessary to devise new, special measures. With
more specific regard to the Jonagold variety, which accounts for 50 % of Belgian production,
the
operational funds likewise mean that producers have the financial resources to convert their orchards to
less over-produced varieties.

3.
Nor does the Commission plan to introduce a production quota system for apples. The common
organisation of the market does not provide for this type of measure, which does not appear suited to
crops for which producers cannot readily forecast their final production. Since 1996 the Council has
instead chosen to assist the fruit and vegetable sector by providing producer organisations with structural
support through the operational funds, so that producer organisations which concentrate supply should be
able to manage short-term fluctuations in production more and more effectively.

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.

(2001/C 53 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1210/00

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

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Turkish illegal immigrants

The European Council meeting in Helsinki last December declared Turkey to be (cid:145)a candidate State destined
to join the Union(cid:146). For many years, however, Turkey has pursued a policy of not controlling or even
encouraging the illegal migration of Turkish citizens to European countries, which creates problems in
Member States bordering Turkey, particularly Greece which receives large numbers of illegal immigrants,
primarily across its extensive sea borders to the east.

20.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 53 E/101

Recently, the entire problem has also become particularly pressing for countries applying for membership
of the Union, which are being compelled to adopt measures to restrict the illegal immigration of Turkish
nationals into their territory.

For example,
the Commission(cid:146)s (cid:145)Regular Report(cid:146) on Slovenia published on 13 October 1999 states
(page 50) that Slovenia was compelled to reintroduce visas from 1 December 1999 for Turkish citizens
wishing to visit the country owing to the volume of illegal
immigrants from Turkey arriving on its
territory.

Has the Commission considered the question of the mass illegal immigration of Turkish citizens into the
Member States and the applicant countries? What is the official position of Turkey and what monitoring
mechanisms have been developed to establish whether Turkey is complying with its commitments?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

The Commission is closely following the problem of illegal immigration from Turkey into the Union.
Turkey is both a country of origin and a transit country for illegal immigrants from neighbouring areas
(e.g. Northern Iraq and Iran) as well as more distant third countries (e.g. Bangladesh, Pakistan). Member
States(cid:146) analysis and intelligence have confirmed that one of the main routes for illegal immigration into the
Union passes through Turkey.

Most of the transit migrants enter Turkey without valid documentation and with the help of internationally
operating facilitator networks who provide the necessary (cid:145)services(cid:146) by procuring documents, supplying
couriers, planning routes and arranging accommodation for stopovers. In many cases, bribery is involved.
Most of
its advantageous
geographical position, its liberal immigration regulations and the availability of transport to it.

the transit migrants chose Turkey as transit country mainly because of

The continuing flow of illegal immigrants, mainly travelling on false or falsified documents, has prompted
the Member States(cid:146) decision to take effective countermeasures and to enhance co-operation with Turkey on
the fight against illegal immigration. The Union initiatives launched to this end include the Union action
plan on Iraq and the neighbouring region, adopted by the Council on 11 October 1999,
in the
implementation of which Turkey plays a very prominent role. When implementing this plan, the Member
States agreed to examine means of support to assist Turkey in the improvement of conditions for detaining
illegal immigrants prior to removal, to exchange experience on formulation of laws on illegal immigration,
to examine the scope for exchange of expertise on the detention of false documents, including possible
technical assistance and Community funding, to ensure feedback, at a bilateral
level, to Turkey on
operational information involving illegal immigration, in particular where trafficking is involved, to liaise
with the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) in examining ways of ensuring the
proper screening of asylum-seekers, and to consider means of assistance for this purpose, in particular by
providing training to Turkish border police in the screening of asylum seekers. Further a joint German and
Dutch pilot project, conducted in 1999, established at Istanbul airport a (cid:145)round-the-clock document adviser
bureau(cid:146).

As a result of an evaluation visit of Union immigration experts to Turkey in May 1999 it was proposed,
in February 2000, to provide to Turkey specific training and assistance in the form of technical aids for
checking the authenticity of travel documents in order to detect false or falsified travel documents and to
immigration into Western European countries. A meeting with Turkish senior officials in
curb illegal
Helsinki, on 26 November 1999, on justice and home affairs issues discussed illegal immigration and
repatriation of illegally residing persons. A study was launched in 1999, with a seminar held in Brussels
in March 2000, on (cid:145)Turkey as transit country and country of illegal
in the
framework of the Odysseus programme 2000, the Commission will seek to select projects involving
practical co-operation with Turkey in the field of asylum, migration and the crossing of external borders.

immigration(cid:146). Moreover,

C 53 E/102

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

In accordance with the conclusions of the 1999 Helsinki European Council, an accession partnership will
be drawn up with Turkey on the basis of previous European Council conclusions while containing
priorities on which accession preparations must concentrate in the light of the political and economic
criteria and the obligations of a Member State, combined with a national programme for the adoption of
the (cid:145)acquis(cid:146). Appropriate monitoring mechanisms will be established.

(2001/C 53 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1215/00

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Parliamentary dependants

How many British politicians, excluding members of the European Parliament, are in receipt of monies
from the European Communities, be they pensions or otherwise sourced?

Who are they? What level of finances are involved in each case? What requirement remains on such
individuals to support the policy of their former employers?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 2000)

The Commission takes the Honourable Member(cid:146)s reference to (cid:145)British politicians(cid:146) to refer to former
Members of the Commission.

The following former members of the Commission of British nationality currently benefit from a pension
which commenced when they reached retirement age: George Thompson, Roy Jenkins, Stanley Clinton
Davis, Francis Cockfield, Ivor Richard, Bruce Millan, and Ralf Dahrendorf. The total cost involved is
currently of the order of £ 245 000 net per annum. The transitional allowance to which Sir Leon Brittan
was entitled was suspended, at his request, from 1 January 2000.

There is no (cid:145)requirement(cid:146) that former Members of the Commission (cid:145)support the policy of their former
employers(cid:146). Ex-Members of the Commission are bound by the provisions of Article 213 of the Treaty and
by their Oath of office (cid:145)to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have
ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits. In the event of any breach of these obligations,
the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council or the Commission, rule that the Member
concerned be, according to the circumstances, (cid:133) deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits in its
stead(cid:146). There is also an obligation to inform the Commission of all changes that might modify the level of
entitlement (Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom of the
Council of 25 July 1967 determining the emoluments of the President and members of the Commission
and of the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice (1)).

(1) OJ L 187, 8.8.1967 and amendments.

(2001/C 53 E/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1216/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE), Johannes Blokland (EDD), Dorette
Corbey (PSE) and Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 April 2000)

Subject: Reopening of the (cid:145)Iron Rhine(cid:146) railway link through De Meinweg nature conservation area on the

Dutch-German border

Can the Commission confirm that in late March 2000 Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany agreed
link between the port of Antwerp and the Ruhr area in

1.
to re-open the (cid:145)Iron Rhine(cid:146), the former rail
Germany?