WRITTEN QUESTION E-1658/00 by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Information on decisions concerning subsidies for type II twinning arrangements.
Date: 2000-05-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, Province of Antwerp, Romania, twinning

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/67

(2001/C 89 E/065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1650/00

by Kurt Lechner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Rules on the right of residence in the EU of spouses from non-member States (applicant countries)

It is well known that under the German law on foreign nationals, when permission is granted for spouses
who are nationals of non-member States to stay in Germany, there are restrictions and time limits which
must be observed if the marriage breaks down. In many cases the spouse would have to leave Germany
and would have no individual entitlement to stay. In this connection the question arises whether the
beginning of accession negotiations with countries such as Poland and Hungary, which may join the EU in
the foreseeable future, has already brought about an improvement in the situation of spouses from these
applicant countries.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2000)

1.
Under current Community law, the rules governing family reunification of nationals of non-member
countries, including the rules on the acquisition by the spouse of a status independent of that of the
person whom they have joined fall within national legislation. But nationals of a non-member country
married to a Union citizen who has exercised his/her right to free movement falls within Community law.
However, in the event of divorce, Community law does not provide protection for a spouse who is a
national of a non-member country, in particular with regard to right of residence, which, in this case, falls
within national law. In the (cid:145)Diatta(cid:146) case (1) the Court of Justice ruled that Article 11 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (2)
does not confer on the members of a migrant worker(cid:146)s family an independent right of residence.

In December 1999 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Directive on the right to family
2.
reunification (3). this is currently under discussion in the Council and Parliament. The proposal is based on
Article 63(3) (former Article 73k) of the EC Treaty and lays down the conditions governing the right of
nationals of non-member countries to family reunification. It determines which members of the family are
eligible, the procedure to be followed, including the means of appeal, the rights of the family members in
particular with regard to the acquisition of an independent status following a given period of residence in a
Member State. The Commission proposal also contains a provision relating to the family reunification of
Union citizens who have not exercised their right to free movement.

The opening and conducting of negotiations with a view to accession by the applicant countries of
3.
Central and Eastern Europe does not have an immediate effect on the legal status of their citizens. This will
change following accession when the provisions relating to free movement of Union citizens become
applicable.

(1) Case 267/83, 13. February 1985.
(2) OJ L 295, 7.12.1968.
(3) COM(1999) 638 final.

(2001/C 89 E/066)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1658/00

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 May 2000)

Subject: Information on decisions concerning subsidies for type II twinning arrangements

Following the lead given by Adoptiedorpen Roemeniº-Vlaanderen (Romania-Flanders adoption villages),
which has been in existence for ten years, Adoptiedorpen Roemeniº-Kempen had the idea of organising a
twinning arrangement and a colloquium from 29 November to 8 December 1999, at a cost of € 49 145.
The documentation (99-0186) was submitted to the Commission as required, three months before the

C 89 E/68

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

event. In August, the organisers were told informally that, in view of the soundness of the project and the
limited funds available, they could reckon with about € 20 000. They decided to continue with the
initiative. But on 31 January 2000 the Commission told them that no funds were available.

1. Why can the Commission not respond to this kind of request within three months?

2. Why can the Commission not say immediately that insufficient funds are available, instead of letting
it be known informally that limited funds will probably be available?

Is the Commission aware that circumstances of this kind can (1) undermine willingness to undertake

3.
such initiatives and even (2) undermine the organisations responsible for them?

Is there any way in which these projects, which are experiencing difficulties as a result, could be

4.
subsidised retroactively?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

In general, the Commission tries to respond to grant applications within a time limit of three months.

The Commission did in fact inform the beneficiaries that their application would be considered favourably.

However, because of the considerable volume of applications in 1999, the available funds allocated to the
town-twinning programme were not enough to support this particular project.

Certain applications of particular importance or interest, including this one, were eventually able to be
supported from the budget for 2000.

(2001/C 89 E/067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1659/00

by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 May 2000)

Subject: Fisheries agreement with Morocco and Spanish Prime Minister Aznar(cid:146)s visit to Morocco

During Spanish Prime Minister Aznar(cid:146)s visit to Morocco, the Moroccan Prime Minister, Mr Yosoufi, was
questioned by the media about the fisheries agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of
Morocco. In Mr Aznar(cid:146)s presence, the Moroccan Prime Minister said that he was awaiting the suggestions
announced by Commissioner Fischler regarding a new agreement.

The Moroccan Prime Minister(cid:146)s remarks, coming five months after the expiry of the previous agreement
and the resulting tying-up of the fleets in Galicia, Andalucia and the Canary Islands, illustrate the total
absence of communication between the EU and Morocco, a problem which was not even raised during the
visit by Mr Aznar, despite the fact that he is Head of Government of the EU State most seriously affected
by the fleets(cid:146) inactivity.

This regrettable situation is apparently due to the lack of interest shown by the Union, which admits that,
in its relations with Morocco, it is negotiating fisheries issues separately from major economic and social
issues, and a similar attitude on the part of the Spanish Prime Minister, who did not include fisheries
among the many issues which took him to Morocco, such as political and social
tourism,
issues,
agriculture, industry and telecommunications, especially with regard to the Telef(cid:243)nica company.

Given the above, will the Commission state what stage has been reached in negotiations with Morocco on
the new Fisheries Agreement and what has been achieved by Mr Aznar(cid:146)s visit to the country?