WRITTEN QUESTION P-2946/01 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council. Common immigration policies in the light of the terrorist attacks in the US.
Date: 2001-10-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, EU migration policy, United Kingdom, drafting of EU law, proposal (EU), refugee, right of asylum, terrorism

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/157

Can the Council now provide full details of the discussions that took place on 16 February between the EU
Presidency and the President of Switzerland concerning the speedy, equitable and fair settlement of claims
made by European victims of road accidents in Switzerland? If not, why is the Council refusing to provide
full details of these discussions?

(1) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 41.

Reply

(14 February 2002)

The Council wishes to refer to its reply to the question (E-1080/01) from the Honourable Member on the
same subject, explaining that the Council has not been informed of any contacts on the subject at hand
between the Presidency of the EU and the President of Switzerland in February of this year. As far as the
Council has been able to establish the matter was not discussed on the occasion referred to by the
Honourable Member.

(2002/C 134 E/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2946/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(19 October 2001)

Subject: Common immigration policies in the light of the terrorist attacks in the US

In the light of the widespread abuse of asylum provisions in the European Union in recent years, the need
to preserve public support for the principle of asylum for genuine refugees and the fact that in the light of
the recent attacks in the US it is ever more vital to ensure that only those who have legal entitlement are
resident in Europe, does the Council accept that one of the principal reasons why human traffickers
continue to find it profitable to ply their trade and why there are so many people living clandestinely
(including many people who had had asylum claims refused in the courts and then ‘disappeared’ into the
community) within the European Union is that there is a failure of political will in Europe to apply the law
and remove those who are not entitled to enter or remain within the borders of Member States?

If so, does the Council believe it is essential that the new common policy on immigration being developed
should at the very minimum ensure that:

: a list is drawn up by the Council of States which do not practice state persecution;

: Member States agree a common definition of asylum, streamline appeals procedures and set in place
mechanisms for the removal of those whose applications are judged unfounded which are respected
by other Member States;

: economic and political pressure is brought to bear by the Union on states which refuse to accept back
their nationals on the grounds that they do not have the necessary documents, and criminal sanctions
be introduced for those whose asylum applications are judged unfounded or who are otherwise
required to leave a Member State if
they refuse to cooperation with the lawful authorities in
identifying and establishing their countries of origin;

: no Member State has laws preventing removal of non-EU citizens not given political refugee status?

C 134 E/158

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

Does the Council also believe that it is in the interests of the Union to show flexibility regarding the legal
basis for any common proposals in the spirit of ‘enhanced cooperation’ so that states such as the UK
which have not transferred competence for immigration control to the European Union are free to agree
to any measures intergovernmentally in a spirit of European cooperation to the benefit of the Union as a
whole?

Reply

(14 February 2002)

Under the mandate in Article 63 of the EC Treaty, the Council pursues its legislative programme with a
view to adopting common rules on asylum, refugees and displaced persons, and immigration policy.

In this context most of the measures envisaged by the Honourable Member are currently being studied
within the Council bodies on the basis of Commission proposals and Opinions of
the European
Parliament,
in particular the proposal relating to minimum standards on procedures for granting and
withdrawing refugee status COM(2000) 578 final.

It should be noted that
the
United Kingdom and Ireland annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the
European Community, has announced its wish to take part in the adoption and application of the
Directive in question.

to the Protocol on the position of

the United Kingdom, pursuant

(2002/C 134 E/159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2953/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Air safety

Bearing in mind the appalling events of September 11 and the recent decision of the International Civil
Aviation Authority at its meeting in Montreal to revise the Chicago Convention to include common
preventive measures against new terrorist threats following a decision to press for such a change at the EU
Transport Ministers’ meeting of 14 September, and given that the ‘black box’ flight recorders of the
aeroplanes which crashed into the World Trade Centre may not have survived the inferno and that the
‘black box’ on the Russian aeroplane which exploded (for whatever reason) over the Black Sea last week is
unlikely ever to be recovered because of the depth at which it is likely to be situated, hampering the
investigations, will the Commission now press for simultaneous cockpit recordings to be transferred to the
ground even if access to the tapes is limited to governments and the Civil Aviation Authorities and they
are routinely erased in the event of a safe landing?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2001)

The question of the transmission of data from flight recorders to ground stations has been examined on a
number of occasions in the past. The main obstacles were of a technical and economic nature.

As regards the technical obstacles, it is true that data transmission has developed to an extent where it
would now be possible to consider the transfer of data from aircraft to the ground.

However, the fairly high costs associated with aspects such as the transmission techniques to be used, the
geographical area to be covered, the updating rate etc. should be examined in relation to the added value
of this new technique, whereas usable recordings are frequently recovered after accidents.