WRITTEN QUESTION E-2042/01 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission. Amended proposal for a Council directive on the right to family reunification.
Date: 2001-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, aid to refugees, application of EU law, drafting of EU law, family migration, foreign national, rights of aliens

C 115 E/30

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

(2002/C 115 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2032/01

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: EC membership of UPOV

At this moment, the European Community has the status of observer at meetings of the International
Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). In April 1998, the 1991 UPOV Treaty was
ratified, which allows for full UPOV membership for intergovernmental organisations such as the European
Community.

Is the Commission aware of the fact that the Committee on Plant Variety Rights stated in the minutes of
its meeting of 1-2 July 1998 that UPOV is dealing with matters containing elements both of national and
of Community competence, and that all Member States have stressed the importance of Community
accession to UPOV?

Does the Commission agree with those statements?

Is the Commission thus planning to put forward a proposal, in the short term, to change the Community’s
observer status into full UPOV membership?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2001)

The Commission confirms that the ‘Union for the protection of New Varieties of Plants’ (UPOV) deals with
matters relating to plant variety rights, a specific form of intellectual property protection in respect of new
varieties of plants. As the Community system on plant variety protection coexists with the national
systems on plant variety protection in most of its Member States, UPOV is indeed dealing with matters
which fall under both Community and national competence. This has been confirmed in the meeting of
the Standing Committee on Plant Variety Rights held on 1-2 July 1998.

The Commission also confirms the importance of the Community accession to UPOV, as stressed by all
Member States in the same meeting.

Reference to a proposal for a Council Decision approving the accession of the Community to the UPOV is
made in the ‘Commission’s Work Programme for 2001’ (1). The proposal will likely be finalised by October
2001, after clarification of the financial and other implications of the accession of the Community to
UPOV.

(1) COM(2001) 28 final.

(2002/C 115 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2042/01

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Amended proposal for a Council directive on the right to family reunification

In Article 3(2) of the amended proposal for a Council directive on the right to family reunification (1)
various groups of third-country nationals are excluded from the scope of the proposal for a directive.
Article 3(2)(b) of the proposal for a directive excludes third-country nationals who have been granted
temporary protection in a Member State; Article 3(2)(c) excludes third-country nationals authorised to
reside in a Member State on the basis of a subsidiary form of protection.

What difference does the Commission see between temporary protection in a Member State and subsidiary
protection in a Member State?

(1) COM(2000) 624 final ; OJ C 62 E, 27.2.2001, p. 99.

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/31

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2001)

The two protection regimes of temporary protection and subsidiary protection are separate regimes which
relate to different situations and different categories of persons.

‘Temporary protection’, as also defined in the Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum
standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on
measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the
consequences thereo (1), means a procedure of exceptional character to provide, in the event of a mass
influx or imminent mass influx of displaced persons from third countries who are unable to return to their
country of origin, immediate and temporary protection to such persons, in particular if there is also a risk
that the asylum system will be unable to process this influx without adverse effects for its efficient
operation, in the interests of the persons concerned and other persons requesting protection.

‘Subsidiary protection’, (as also defined in the Proposal for a Council Directive (2) (COM(2001) …) laying
down minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons
in accordance with the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967
as refugees,
protocol, or as persons who otherwise need international protection), means a form of international
protection for persons not entitled to refugee status but who are otherwise in need of international
protection.

Temporary Protection is therefore reserved for situations of mass influx. It is an exceptional mechanism,
providing immediate protection for persons concerned. It is to be triggered by the Council of Ministers
(qualified majority) on the basis of a Commission proposal. It is valid for one year, with the possibility of
an automatic extension for a further two six-month periods. The Council can decide on a further extension
of up to one year. If the situation in the country of origin allow it, the Council can decide to end
Temporary Protection. Temporary Protection does not prejudge recognition of refugee status under the
Geneva Convention and the Proposal for a Council Directive establishes access to the normal asylum
procedure if persons concerned wish so.

The beneficiaries of temporary protection will be given residence permits, appropriate information, right to
work, accommodation, social assistance, health care, and education. At least close family members will be
able to reunite.

As opposed to temporary protection subsidiary protection is not reserved for specific situations, and can
be provided to persons who applied for international protection, do not meet the criteria for refugee status
as laid down in the 1951 Refugee Convention, but for whom it has nevertheless been determined that they
are in need of international protection.

(1) OJ L 212, 7.8.2001.
(2) Not available yet.

(2002/C 115 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2045/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Banning of the Party of Virtue in Turkey

(13 July 2001)

On 22 June the Turkish Constitutional Court decided to ban the activities of the Party of Virtue, confiscate
its assets and deprive some of its members of their civil rights for five years.

Is such a decision in an applicant country compatible with the acquis communautaire,

1.
Copenhagen criteria and the commitments deriving from the partnership?

the

2. What steps will the Commission take in order to send Turkey a clear message that its commitment to
fulfilling its binding obligations as an applicant country must not remain a dead letter?