WRITTEN QUESTION E-2954/01 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Common immigration policies in the light of the terrorist attacks in the US.
Date: 2001-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU migration policy, admission of aliens, illegal migration, migration control, return migration, right of asylum

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/65

Does the Commission consider that, in general, its remit covers the safety of European citizens, including
adequate checks on the safety standards applied by air traffic control authorities and companies that
manage airports in Europe?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2938/01 and E-2940/01
given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

The Commission shares the Honourable Members’ concern about the risk of runway incursions, as
happened at Linate airport.

The Commission has started work in this area under the research programmes and two years ago a project
called BETA was launched to assess the benefits that can be achieved through a common definition of
requirements, and field demonstrations are being organised now. The Commission is working with the
International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and Eurocontrol to define technical requirements, and the
results of present activities are being presented to ICAO fora.

Once the technical requirement will be assessed,
the Commission’s recent proposals on the Single
European Sky1 (1) will make it possible to mandate the necessary measures to be taken at each European
airport in order to ensure a very high safety standard. This will include any means, including runway signs,
to ensure a comprehensive and efficient way of surveying surface movements.

(1) COM(2001) 123 final and 564 final.

(2002/C 147 E/067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2954/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 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 Commission 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 Commission believe that it is essential that the new common policy on immigration being
developed should at the very minimum ensure that:

8 a list is drawn up by the Council of states which do not practise state persecution;

8 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;

8 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
are introduced for those whose asylum applications are judged unfounded or who are otherwise
required to leave a Member State if they refuse to cooperate with the lawful authorities in identifying
and establishing their countries of origin;

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

C 147 E/66

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

Does the Commission 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?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2002)

There are a number of factors which have encouraged smuggling and trafficking into the Union in recent
years. This is why,
immigration (1), the
in its recent Communication on a common policy on illegal
Commission has made proposals for a specific Action Plan to coordinate and reinforce Member States’
actions in a number of areas in order to deal with the key issues more efficiently and coherently. These
include visa policy;
information exchange and analysis; pre-frontier measures; the development of a
European Border Guard; the strengthening of police and judicial co-operation and measures to help to
tackle the issue of undeclared work, since this can also encourage illegal migration.

With respect to the return policies of the Member States, the Honourable Member should bear in mind
that according to figures on return gathered by Eurostat, the numbers of persons removed from the Union
are not insignificant. In the year 2000 for example 367 552 (2) people were removed together with 87 628
assisted voluntary removals (3). Nevertheless,
in the context of a comprehensive Union asylum and
immigration policy, the Commission considers that the issue of return merits an in-depth reflection in
order to develop a coherent Community approach which takes into account its complexities. In order to
stimulate this debate, the Commission is preparing a Green Paper on return policy for early 2002 which
will include proposals for common standards and measures. In this connection the establishment of a
coherent Union policy on readmission was identified as another priority area by the Tampere European
Council, 15 and 16 October 1999. Negotiations on such agreements have now been initiated with Russia,
Morocco, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong and Macau and a first agreement was recently initialled with the
Special Administrative Region Hong Kong.

With respect to asylum, the Commission works on the basis of article 63 (ex Article 73k) of the EC Treaty.
its legislative proposals for a first phase of
it has made all
In the light of the Tampere conclusions,
harmonisation. In its Communication of November 2000 (4) ‘Towards a common asylum procedure and a
uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for those granted asylum’ which is the long term objective of
Union harmonisation in this field, the Commission proposed options, scenarios and methods to reach this
very ambitious goal. The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the recent
Communication of November 2001 (5) on the common asylum policy, introducing an open coordination
method, complementing and supporting the legislative process. One of the five European guidelines
suggested by the Commission deals with the issue of returns. The Communication also includes the first
report by the Commission on the application of the November 2000 Communication and gives a
comprehensive overview of Union policy in this field.

In addition, the Commission has also adopted a Working Paper for presentation to the Justice and Home
Affairs (JHA) Council on 6-7 December 2001 which sets out how internal security can be safeguarded
while at the same time complying with international protection obligations. This paper provides a basis for
further discussion at European level and suggests some changes to existing and proposed Community
legislation in the field of immigration and asylum.

Concerning the position of the United Kingdom, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member
that, according to the Protocol on its position annexed to the Treaties, the United Kingdom does not take
part in the adoption by the Council of proposed measures pursuant to Title IV of the EC Treaty and that
no such provision or measure is binding on or applicable to the United Kingdom. However, the United
Kingdom may notify, within three months of its presentation to the Council, a wish to take part in the

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/67

adoption and application of any such proposed measure. The United Kingdom may also, at any time after
the adoption of such a measure, notify that it wishes to accept the measure. The Commission, in the
interest of legal certainty, strongly advocates the use of the correct legal basis for proposals in these fields.

(1) COM(2001) 672 final.
(2) Source: Eurostat 8 no data available from IRL, NL and UK, missing data from B, DK and L.
(3) Source: IOM 8 most assisted voluntary returns have taken place from Germany (68 648 in 2000).
(4) COM(2000) 755 final.
(5) COM(2001) 710 final.

(2002/C 147 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2955/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Safeguards in granting EU citizenship

Given that those non-EU nationals who are given citizenship of a Member State enjoy rights of EU
citizenship in all other Member States, does the Council believe it is time to ensure that certain minimum
conditions are met before EU citizenship is granted,
including absence of criminal activity and a
willingness on the part of the applicant to uphold EU law? Does the Council believe that there should also
exist mechanisms to withdraw citizenship in the event of deception on the part of the applicant when
applying for citizenship, or serious criminal behaviour including involvement in organised crime or
terrorism and incitement to violence against other EU citizens or friendly states?

Reply

(1 March 2002)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member concern European citizenship in relation to

1.
obtaining nationality in a Member State of the Union.

2.
These questions are important insofar as they relate to problems with potential implications for the
area of freedom, security and justice. It should be noted, however, that this matter is governed solely by
national rules. Each Member State applies provisions of national law when granting or refusing nationality
and determining the applicable procedure. Neither the Community nor the Union has any powers in this
area.

3.
That position is confirmed by Declaration No 2 on nationality of a Member State annexed to the
final act of Maastricht, which stipulates that ‘wherever in the Treaty establishing the European Community
reference is made to nationals of the Member States, the question whether an individual possesses the
nationality of a Member State shall be settled solely by reference to the national law of the Member State
concerned’.

Section A/III of the Conclusions of the European Council at its meeting in Tampere on 15 and

4.
16 October 1999 set out the parameters for ensuring fair treatment for third country nationals.

5.
Attention should be drawn to the fact that the European Commission publishes a regular report on
citizenship of the Union. The third report on this subject was published in September 2001 under the
reference COM(2001) 506 final.