WRITTEN QUESTION E-1905/01 by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission. Unsatisfactory treatment of two Scottish tourists in Majorca.
Date: 2001-06-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Scotland, Spain, free movement of persons, identity document, residence permit, theft, traveller

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/135

In this case, the dossier submitted by the town of Oundle was not accompanied by the detailed schedule of
the meeting, as specified in point 7.1.(c) of the above-mentioned call for proposals. Since there was no
schedule of the proposed meeting, the selection committee was unable to assess the quality or the
European interest of the project submitted.

The new procedure for awarding support for actions to promote town-twinning was adopted following
consultation of national associations representing the twinning movement
in October 2000. This
procedure, which is based on the principles behind the awarding of subsidies under other Community
measures, aims to make the system more transparent and effective, and to guarantee equal treatment of all
those concerned.

(1) Call for proposals DG EAC No 75/00 (OJ C 320, 9.11.2000).

(2002/C 40 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1905/01

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 June 2001)

Subject: Unsatisfactory treatment of two Scottish tourists in Majorca

In May 2001 two elderly Scottish tourists were robbed on their arrival at Palma de Majorca airport and
their handbags, documentation and passports were taken.

The two women wished to report the theft to the Spanish police at the passport control terminal of the
airport. They also asked to contact their consulate in order to obtain a provisional passport, since their
passports had been stolen.

The Spanish authorities refused to listen to the arguments put by these two European citizens, or the
explanations given by the tour representatives. The Spanish police merely informed the two tourists that
they must leave the island and the Spanish state because they had no passports. They were thus informed
of their immediate deportation on the next flight to Scotland, which was due to leave the next day at
5 a.m. local time.

One of the women, who is 92, had to spend the night on a hard chair in the airport under Spanish police
guard. She has still not recovered from the trauma suffered that night.

As a result of the theft of their documentation and the negligent attitude of the Spanish authorities, these
two European tourists were unable to continue their journey, received unsatisfactory treatment and were
deported.

On other occasions the EU has adopted special measures in favour of tourists, facilitating the crossing of
borders and enhancing their safety and that of their property. The European Parliament has called for
greater protection of tourists(cid:146) interests.

The European Parliament has also spoken in favour of securing the greatest possible freedom for all
individuals at the Union(cid:146)s internal borders.

Given the serious incident at Palma de Majorca airport, and bearing in mind the acquis commaunautaire with
regard to both tourism and the free movement of persons, what is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the above
incident, assuming that the facts are confirmed? Will the Commission lodge a formal complaint with the
government representative in the Balearics, who is responsible for the Spanish police? Would it consider it
appropriate for the Spanish police or authorities to compensate for the harm caused to these elderly
Scottish tourists, or to rectify it in some way?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2001)

The Commission regrets the treatment which, according to the Honourable Member, was received by two
Scottish tourists from the Spanish authorities following the theft of their passports and documentation on
arriving at Palma de Majorca airport in May 2001.

C 40 E/136

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

Article 18 (formerly Article 8a) of the EC Treaty lays down the right of every citizen of the Union to move
and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid
down in the EC Treaty and by measures adopted to give it effect. Community legislation on the right of
residence stipulates that Member States must admit nationals of other Member States and the members of
their family into their territory against presentation of a valid identity card or passport.

On the basis of that legislation, only persons carrying a valid passport or identity card enjoy right of
residence. Community legislation does not provide for measures which the Member States may adopt in
the event that these documents are not available.

However, the Commission takes the view that Member States should, in accordance with the principle of
proportionality, show flexibility and allow persons enjoying the right of residence to prove their identity
by other means before deporting them. To this end, the proposal for a Directive on the right of citizens of
the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States,
adopted by the Commission on 23 May 2001 (1), lays down that, where a Union citizen or family member
does not have the necessary travel documents, the Member State concerned must, before turning them
back, give such persons every opportunity to obtain the necessary documents or have them brought to
them or to corroborate or prove by other means that they are covered by the right to freedom of
movement.

In view of the circumstances of the case at issue, the decision to deport the tourists without giving them
any such opportunity,
their consulate in order to obtain
provisional documentation, would seem disproportionate. The Commission intends to approach the
Spanish authorities concerning this alleged incident.

in particular the opportunity to contact

(1) COM(2001) 257 final.

(2002/C 40 E/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1906/01

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Council

(29 June 2001)

Subject: Vietnam

After being long banned, the Internet has developed quickly in Vietnam. In 1997, in the face of this new
situation, the Vietnam authorities equipped themselves with a system to monitor all Internet connections.
According to the (cid:145)Guide du Routard(cid:146) (p. 137), the system was supplied to the Vietnamese authorities by
the French authorities by way of a (cid:145)friendly gesture(cid:146).

Is the Council aware that the French authorities supplied the Vietnamese authorities with the Internet
monitoring system. Does the Council regard such supplies as appropriate? Does the Council take the view
that supplying such monitoring systems is compatible with the fostering of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, which, as it keeps on reaffirming, is one of the bases for its policy towards Vietnam? Could the
Council say whether it has held an internal debate on supplying the monitoring system to Vietnam or,
possibly, on supplying similar systems to other non-member countries? More generally, does the Council
not believe that, in addition to arms, other (cid:145)commercial supplies(cid:146) ought to be excluded from trade between
Union and non-member countries or that, at the very least, they ought to be covered by extremely
restrictive rules?

Reply

(8 October 2001)

The Council has not been informed that any such system has been supplied nor are there any measures it
could take to prevent third countries from being provided with this kind of system.