WRITTEN QUESTION E-2054/01 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Programmes for the integration of immigrants.
Date: 2001-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: action programme, competence of the Member States, foreign national, integration of migrants, social integration, social policy

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/171

The Commission accordingly considers that it cannot answer the Honourable Member(cid:146)s questions, which
proceed from a different analysis.

As regards the letter of 13 December 1999 and its annexes, the Commission, on the basis of the relevant
Community and national law, will examine whether and how it might be released to Parliament.

(2002/C 40 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2052/01

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Loans to immigrants for business activity

(13 July 2001)

There is experience in the Member States of providing special forms of loan to promote business activity
by women. These have, obviously, been aimed only at women and have fostered greater enterprise among
them.

Do similar loan schemes exist in the Member States for business activity by immigrants?

If they do, what effect have they had on immigrants(cid:146) social situation and in helping them to put down
roots in their new environment?

If such schemes do not exist, would it be possible to launch a common EU project to introduce them in
the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2001)

The Commission is considering the opportunity to put forward new proposals in 2002 to promote the
integration of immigrants. Subject to the adoption of these proposals and to the provision of the necessary
resources, the suggestion made by the Honorable Member could be considered within the context of the
activities to be supported.

(2002/C 40 E/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2054/01

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Programmes for the integration of immigrants

(13 July 2001)

Various different programmes have been introduced in the Member States to promote the integration of
immigrants into society in their new homeland. However, all
the
programmes only benefit those members of the country(cid:146)s own population who organise them; as a rule,
not even the implementation of the programmes has been entrusted to immigrants.

too often immigrants find that

Has the success of programmes for the integration of immigrants been assessed?

In which countries have the best results been achieved in terms of immigrants putting down new roots,
and what factors have been conducive to such success?

Has the commercial value of the programmes and of education etc. associated with them been assessed,
and has consideration been given to the possibility of making immigrants responsible for such business
activity?

C 40 E/172

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2001)

Responsibility for the integration of migrants lies with the Member State which has admitted the migrants
concerned. The Commission has not, therefore, carried out any systematic analysis of such programmes.

the Commission has put

In its Communication on an Open Method of Coordination for the Community Immigration Policy (1) of
11 July 2001,
forward proposals for European Guidelines, one of which
(Guideline 6) concerns the development of comprehensive national integration policies for third country
nationals residing legally on the territory of the Member State concerned. Once approved by the Council,
Member States will be invited to submit national plans for the implementation of this guideline which
includes the setting of an appropriate framework to ensure the involvement of all the relevant actors
including migrants themselves.

The implementation of the open coordination method will enable the Commission in the future to provide
information on the success of integration programmes for migrants and on the key factors which bring
this about, including the role of migrants in the conception and running of such programmes.

The Commission intends to put forward proposals in 2002 for an Action Programme to promote the
integration of immigrants. Subject to the adoption of this programme and to the provision of the
necessary resources, the suggestion made by the Honorable Member could be considered within the
context of the activities to be supported.

(1) COM(2001) 387 final.

(2002/C 40 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2055/01

by Jean-Louis BerniØ (EDD) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Natura 2000 network (cid:129) application of Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May

1992 ((cid:145)habitats-fauna-flora directive(cid:146)) (cid:129) concept of significant disturbance

At the moment of transcription by decree into national law of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979
(the (cid:145)wild birds(cid:146) directive) and Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 (the (cid:145)habitats directive(cid:146)), the French
implementing law lays down a general principle, namely that (cid:145)(cid:133) fishing, hunting and other similar
activities practised in the conditions and on the land areas authorised by the laws and regulations in force
should not constitute disturbing activities or activities having such effects(cid:146) (Article 3(6)).

The European Court of Justice, in its judgment of 19 January 1994, stated: (cid:145)Any hunting activity is liable
to disturb wildlife and (cid:133) may in many cases affect the state of conservation of the species concerned,
independently of the extent to which it depletes numbers (cid:133) Those disturbances are reported to have an
adverse impact on the level of energy of each individual and the mortality rate of all the populations
concerned.(cid:146)

The Commission, in its reasoned opinion of 13 September 1994, took the view that Article 7 does not
authorise hunting within a special protected area and that hunting activities inevitably affect the life of
birds, even if guarantees are made that those birds will not be killed. It added that beating, gun-shots and
the presence of hunters with dogs are incompatible with the objectives of reproduction and survival laid
down in Article 4.

Is the text of the French implementing law compatible with Article 6(2) of the (cid:145)habitats(cid:146) directive which
replaces Article 4 of the (cid:145)wild birds directive(cid:146) and with the judgment of the European Court of Justice, as
well as with the Commission(cid:146)s interpretations in its reasoned statements and in its guide to the
management of (cid:145)Natura 2000(cid:146) sites (especially paragraphs 3.2 and following?).

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.