WRITTEN QUESTION E-2643/01 by Yasmine Boudjenah (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Geneva Convention on the status of refugees.
Date: 2001-09-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, accession to an agreement, enlargement of the Union, international convention, international human rights law, political asylum, refugee, right of asylum

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/137

(cid:1) monitoring by the public authorities (cid:1) where necessary, in cooperation with consumer associations (cid:1)
of compliance with the conversion and rounding rules: Deliberate mistakes will generally be referred
to the courts. In addition to any administrative or criminal penalties, ‘naming and shaming’ could act
as a useful deterrent;

(cid:1) encouragement

to enter into voluntary agreements to keep prices stable: The Commission has
sponsored at European level the signing of an agreement by trade organisations to ensure overall price
stability on the changeover to the euro. The common slogan is quite clear: new currency, stable prices;

(cid:1) Commission request that Member States round all public-sector charges in a manner that is neutral or

benefits taxpayers: They have all agreed to this request.

All in all, the changeover to the euro is thus expected in the short term to have only a marginal effect on
inflation. In the medium term it will help make for better control of prices by strengthening competition
through greater transparency and comparability of prices.

(2002/C 115 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2643/01

by Yasmine Boudjenah (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Geneva Convention on the status of refugees

(28 September 2001)

The Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the status of refugees, together with the New York
Protocol of 31 January 1967, are still the basic instruments for the international protection of refugees. In
its declaration of 28 July 2001, the European Union called on ‘all States that have not yet done so to ratify
the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol’.

What Member States have not yet ratified the 1951 Convention?

What measures does the Commission propose taking to encourage Member States which have not yet
done so to ratify the Convention?

The European Parliament has on many occasions called for an extension of the criteria for recognition of
the right of asylum in order to take account of developments in terms of new forms of persecution. Is the
Commission prepared to put forward proposals to this effect?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2001)

All 15 Member States, as well as the 13 current applicant countries, have ratified both the 1951 Geneva
Convention and the 1967 New York Protocol. Among the members of the United Nations, and according
to information provided by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),
there are 52 states that are not yet party to the Convention and Protocol (see annex A).

The Commission emphasizes the importance of all members of the United Nations (UN) ratifying the 1951
in order to create the strongest possible
Geneva Convention (and the 1967 New York Protocol)
international legal framework for providing protection to refugees. Within this context the Commission
fully supports every initiative to address the issue within the framework of several relevant international
fora, in particular the UNHCR’s Executive Committee as well as the so-called ‘Global Consultations’ (set up
by UNHCR, in the context of the 50th anniversary of the Refugee Convention).

The Commission does not intend to put forward proposals on the ‘extension for recognition of the right of
asylum.’ However, what it has done has been to adopt on 12 September 2001 a proposal for a Council
Directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless
persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection (1).

C 115 E/138

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

The Proposal lays down principles on the recognition and content of refugee status. It lays down the same
rules for subsidiary protection status, to be granted to those who do not qualify for refugee status, but for
whom it has been determined that they are in need of international protection otherwise. The Proposal
also contains principles on the possible ‘sources’ of persecution, within the meaning of the Refugee
Convention, including persecution by so-called non-state agents, where the State is unwilling or unable to
provide effective protection. Furthermore, the Proposal provides principles in considering five grounds for
persecution as listed in the Refugee Convention,
including the persecution ground ‘membership of a
particular social group’, which in the Proposal is defined as to potentially cover gender-related persecution.

(1) COM(2001) 510 final.

(2002/C 115 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2646/01

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 September 2001)

Subject: Restrictions on trade in pig fat

At present, Germany does not allow any animal
to be included in animal
feedingstuffs. On 12 January 2001, the Standing Scientific Committee stated that it was wrong to take this
stance.

including pig fat,

fat,

1.
Does the Commission agree with the Standing Scientific Committee that Germany’s ban on the
inclusion of any animal fat in animal feedingstuffs as a precaution against BSE goes too far, and that this
measure contravenes European law?

2.
Does the Commission also agree that the Netherlands’ decision (21 December 2001/No TRCJZ/2000/
15455, Netherlands Government Gazette (Staatscourant) of 22 December 2000, No 249, p. 44, Article III,
C) to ban the marketing, processing, inclusion in other products or transport of animal fat originating in
France or Germany intended for feeding to livestock violates European legislation on the internal market?
The same raw material may be used if it comes either from Dutch animals or from fat from German
animals rendered in the Netherlands.

3. Will the Commission declare these regulations invalid, so that normal trade in pig fat, for example,
can resume?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

Certain Member States, such as Germany and the Netherlands, have taken measures to ban fats of animal
origin in animal feedingstuffs. As the Honourable Member points out, a general ban has been enacted in
the case of Germany. The Dutch measures concern only fats from France and Germany, which are Member
States that have themselves adopted measures providing for a total or partial ban.

Given the heterogeneous nature of the measures taken in the various Member States, the Commission
believes that the problem requires an overall solution.

That is why the Commission began a process of general reflection on the evaluation of animal fats with
regard to the risks of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.

Accordingly, at the beginning of 2001 it asked the Scientific Steering Committee about the whole issue of
the evaluation of these animal fats.