WRITTEN QUESTION P-3618/00 by Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE) to the Council. Combating paedophilia and sex tourism.
Date: 2000-11-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU police cooperation, Internet, paedophilia, police cooperation

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/93

mentioned between the 10-day and monthly toll discs on one hand and the annual toll disc on the other
do not raise any suspicion of indirect discrimination either. The Commission has therefore no reason or
legal basis for investigating further the increases or the discrepancies in the percentage increase.

4. Whenever the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the
EC Treaty it follows the procedure defined in the EC Treaty itself (Articles 226 and 228 (ex Articles 169
and 171)) for this purpose.

(1)

Judgements of 12.9.2000, cases C-276/97 and four others, Commission v. France and four other Member States
and judgement of 18.1.2001, case C-83/99, Commission v. Spain (not yet published in the ECR).

(2001/C 174 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3618/00

by Raffaele Lombardo (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 November 2000)

Subject: Combating paedophilia and (cid:145)sex tourism(cid:146)

Every day, and in every country of the world, serious crimes are committed against children. Furthermore,
the problem of paedophilia has become more widespread in recent years. But, as the law stands, the
Community institutions have no powers to deal with criminal matters and so it is up to the Member States
to ensure they have effective and deterrent laws to combat paedophilia. Meanwhile, the Internet is playing
an increasingly frequent role in the commission of such crimes.

In view of the foregoing:

1. What progress does the Council expect to achieve in terms of greater (cid:145)communitarisation of the third
pillar(cid:146) (i.e. bringing matters relating to justice and home affairs within the ambit of the European
Union) to ensure increased and more effective judicial and police cooperation, particularly with regard
to crimes involving paedophilia?

2. What is the Council(cid:146)s position with regard to placing all European paedophiles on a register with a
view to monitoring their movements and exploiting the networks established to facilitate police
cooperation at international and European level for the purpose of crime prevention in addition to law
enforcement?

3. What new measures are being drawn up in the field of international cooperation to abolish the
anonymity enjoyed by Internet sites and oblige those operating electronic data communication
networks to record and keep the data which would make it possible to trace material involving the
dissemination of, or trade in, child pornography to be traced back to those responsible?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

The Council is awaiting important initiatives from the Commission to strengthen judicial cooperation on
crimes against children.

The Honourable Member will agree, however, that, as the initiatives mentioned in the reply to Written
Question P-1748/00 on the trafficking and sexual exploitation of children show, the Council(cid:146)s proceedings
have made it possible to strengthen considerably the means of combating trafficking in human beings and
crimes against children.

The Council has received no initiatives relating to the placing of all European paedophiles on a register.
This controversial subject has not been tackled hitherto in Council Working Parties.

As regards work in progress in international bodies, we should mention the draft European Convention on
Cyber-Crime, which is under examination in the Council of Europe.

C 174 E/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

Finally, on 29 May 2000 the Council adopted a Decision to combat child pornography on the Internet on
the basis of an initiative of the Republic of Austria. (1)

Article 6 of that Decision on which the European Parliament has been consulted provides for the Council
to examine the extent to which Member States have fulfilled their obligations pursuant to Joint Action 97/
154/JHA, and the extent to which the measures proposed in the Decision have proved effective.

The Honourable Member will note that the Council made the following statement when that Decision was
adopted:

The Council welcomes the opinion of the European Parliament, published as (cid:147)Legislative Resolution
on the initiative of the Republic of Austria with a view to adopting a Council Decision to combat
child pornography on the Internet(cid:148) (2). In addition to the amendments which have been incorporated
by the Council in the Decision, the opinion raises a number of important issues relating to substantive
criminal law and criminal procedure. The Council, mindful of the urgency to take immediate measures
against child pornography on the Internet, declares its willingness to examine such questions in the
light of the Joint Action 97/154/JHA of 24 February 1997 and on the basis of proposals which are
expected in the future.

(1) Council Decision of 29 May 2000 to combat child pornography on the Internet (OJ L 138, 9.6.2000, page 1).
(2) European Parliament document 10317/1999 (cid:129) C5-0318/1999 (cid:129) 1999/0822(CNS).

(2001/C 174 E/098)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3629/00

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Notification of bird species on the (cid:145)Natura 2000(cid:146) information form

According to expert opinions, 14 species of birds which should have been included on the Natura 2000
information form for the Mustavuori-(cid:214)stersundom area in Finland have been omitted from the form. Their
exclusion is justified by stating (cid:129) contrary to the expert opinions (cid:129) that these species occur only rarely. If
an interpretation of the regulations which contradicts environmental expert evidence is deemed to be
admissible, this is likely to lead to a conclusion which conflicts with the objectives of the birds and habitats
directives.

How does the Commission monitor the Member States to ensure that they do not, by their interpretations,
neglect to include on the Natura 2000 information form bird species occurring in SPAs (Special Protection
Areas), as prescribed in the habitats and birds directives? This matter is linked to the official decisions
pending in Finland on the project for a major harbour at Vuosaari, particularly with regard to the
definition of the borders of the Mustavuori-(cid:214)stersundom Natura 2000 area and the effects of this harbour
on this Natura 2000 area.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2001)

Referring to Article 4(3) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
birds (1), Member States have to send the Commission all relevant information to ensure that the most
suitable territories in number and size have been classified as special protection areas.

If mistakes are observed in the standard data forms, for example in connection with complaints, the
Commission will ask Member States to correct the information.

In the case referred to in the question, the Commission has made the same observation, which is based on
experts(cid:146) statements.