WRITTEN QUESTION E-2653/01 by Frank Vanhecke (TDI) to the Commission. Combating terrorism.
Date: 2001-10-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European arrest warrant, area of freedom, security and justice, extradition, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, mutual recognition principle, proposal (EU), terrorism

C 115 E/140

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

2000/43/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic
origin and until 2 December 2003 to transpose Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for
equal treatment in employment and occupation (with a possibility of an extension of up to a further three
years for the provisions on discrimination on grounds of disability and age).

(1) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000.
(2) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.
(3) OJ L 14, 20.1.1998.

(2002/C 115 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2653/01

by Frank Vanhecke (TDI) to the Commission

(1 October 2001)

Subject: Combating terrorism

In response to the growth of terrorism in Europe and worldwide, and more particularly following the
recent attacks in the USA, Parliament, the Commission and the Council have announced that they will
shortly adopt new legislation to combat terrorism.

Yet the Union’s existing instruments relating to this subject are already very extensive: a succession of
resolutions, recommendations, conventions, declarations, charters etc. have been adopted, in many cases
overlapping. During the recent debate on the Watson report in the EP, no fewer than 52 existing
documents were cited in the proposal for a recommendation.

Does the Commission intend to do something about this plethora of conventions and declarations in order
to establish a clear and effective set of instruments?

Will the Commission streamline and consolidate all these documents?

If so, within what time-frame?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2001)

The Commission presented two proposals at the extraordinary Justice and Home Affaires (JHA) Council on
20 September 2001 in Brussels:

< A draft proposal

for a Framework Decision on combating terrorism (1), which is based on
Article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty establishing the European Union, aimed at establishing minimum rules
relating to the constituent elements and penalties in the field of terrorism, implementing Article 31 (e)
of the Treaty establishing the European Union. Provisions to facilitate judicial cooperation are also
included. The proposal is in the ‘Scoreboard’ for the implementation of an area of freedom, security
and justice, the last version of which was presented in May 2001 (2).

This proposal provides a broad list of offences indicating when they are to be regarded as terrorist
offences. It also includes offences related to terrorist groups. It places an obligation on the Member
States to ensure that these offences will be punishable as terrorist offences.

< A draft proposal

for a Framework Decision for a European arrest warrant (3) and a surrender
procedure between Member States. The European arrest warrant covers the compulsory transfer of a
person from one Member State to another. The proposal to create a European arrest warrant is also in
the ‘Scoreboard’ for the implementation of an area of freedom, security and justice.

The Commission proposes a horizontal system which would replace the current extradition system in all
matters, and is not limited to certain offences. The mechanism is based on mutual recognition of judicial
decisions. The basic idea is as follows: when the authority of a Member State requires that a person be
handed over, either under the terms of a final judgment, or because the person is the subject of criminal
proceedings, its decision has to be recognised and implemented on all the territory of the Union.

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/141

These Commission proposals are a concrete contribution to translating into legal terms the political
declarations, recommendations and decisions regarding terrorism which were cited in the resolution
quoted by the Honourable Member.

Accordingly, the Commission has given legal form to those political purposes, consolidating them within a
legal text.

Concerning the time-frame, the JHA Council on 20 September 2001 instructed the Committee of Senior
Officials set up under Article 36 of the Treaty on European Union to take steps immediately to examine
the two proposals thoroughly so as to enable the Council to achieve significant political agreement on
both proposals at its meeting on 6 and 7 December 2001.

The extraordinary European Council meeting on 21 September 2001 signified its agreement
to the
introduction of a European arrest warrant and the adoption of a common definition of terrorism. The
warrant will supplant the current system of extradition between Member States. Extradition procedures do
not at present reflect the level of integration and confidence between Member States. Accordingly, the
European arrest warrant will allow wanted persons to be handed over directly from one judicial authority
to another. In parallel, fundamental rights and freedoms will be guaranteed.

In addition, the European Council directed the Justice and Home Affairs Council to flesh out that
agreement and to determine the relevant arrangements, as a matter of urgency and at the latest at its
meeting on 6 and 7 December 2001.

(1) COM(2001) 521 final.
(2) COM(2001) 278 final.
(3) COM(2001) 522 final.

(2002/C 115 E/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2661/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 October 2001)

Subject: The effectiveness of the European Community’s no-vaccination policy as a solution to foot-and-

mouth disease

Is the Commission aware:

< that a study of 60 foot-and-mouth outbreaks around the world in the last decade led by
lecturer at the Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine at the University of
Dr. Keith Sumption,
Edinburgh, showed that in 22 countries that did not vaccinate before an outbreak of the disease those
countries that used a combination of vaccination and slaughter were all able to control the virus
within 42 days, whilst half the non-vaccinating countries that opted for slaughter-only took longer
than 50 days to contain the epidemic, with eight of the 10 longest outbreaks involving a slaughter-
only policy, and that the study concluded that slaughter-only policies had worked effectively only
when outbreaks were small and very localised and tackled immediately;

< that 95 % of the millions of animals slaughtered in the U.K. in recent months were perfectly healthy,
causing immense distress to many farmers, some of whom barricaded their farms or resorted to legal
proceedings in an attempt to prevent their flocks and herds being slaughtered;

< that one of the world’s leading experts on the disease, Professor Frederick Brown, the former Deputy
Director at the animal virus research unit at Pirbright, former Professor of virology at Yale University
and currently visiting scientist at one of America’s leading testing laboratories, has argued that
vaccination was the only way to slow an outbreak in which sheep (which can carry the virus for three
weeks before showing symptoms) were the principal carriers, and that when he offered the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the use of a testing system developed by his laboratory which could
test for infection on site and produce accurate results within two hours, he was told that the scientists
there were ‘too busy’;