WRITTEN QUESTION E-3082/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Cost of developing migration control measures for the Schengen zone.
Date: 2001-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, Schengen Information System, border control, competence of the Member States, migration control, operating cost, wage cost

C 134 E/192

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

In line with the decentralised approach to programming of rural development
alternative systems.
measures, it is the responsibility of Member States and/or regions to decide if they wish to offer these types
of possibilities within their rural development programmes.

(1) Directive 92/117/EEC of the Council concerning measures for protection against specified zoonoses and specific
zoonotic agents in animals and products of animal origin in order to prevent outbreaks of food-borne infections
and intoxications (OJ L 62, 15.3.1993), as amended by Directive 1999/72/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 July 1999 (OJ L 210, 10.8.1999).

(2) OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001.
(3) OJ L 203, 3.8.1999.

(2002/C 134 E/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3081/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Practical implementation of Eurodac

The development of a central database of fingerprints is in practice undeniably a complex matter.

Does the Commission know when Eurodac is due to become operational as a central fingerprint register?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s assessment that the development of Eurodac’s Central
Unit is indeed a complex matter.

However, implementation of the Central Unit is making good progress and is going according to plan.

Further progress will depend on the adoption of implementing rules which so far have not yet been
adopted by the Council of the European Union. Provided the implementing rules are adopted by January
2002 and operational tests with Member States go well, the Central Unit could be ready by mid-2002.

However, Article 27 of the Eurodac Regulation (1) stipulates inter alia that in order to start operations of
Eurodac, Member States have to notify the Commission that they have made the necessary technical
arrangements to transmit data to the Central Unit. All Member States to which the Regulation currently
applies presently estimate that such notification will occur before the end of 2002. Provided these
estimates are correct, Eurodac could thus start operations at the end of 2002.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 concerning the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the

comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention, OJ L 316, 15.12.2000.

(2002/C 134 E/199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3082/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Cost of developing migration control measures for the Schengen zone

How much has it cost the Schengen countries to step up migration control measures in connection with
implementation of the Schengen Agreement? What is the cost of other measures that are required to
implement the agreement, such as the creation of registers and increased staffing?

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/193

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2001)

The Commission has no data on the costs incurred in putting the Schengen Implementing Convention into
practice in the Union. The responsibility lies with the Member States, particularly in the area of visa policy
and checks at external borders, to set up their administrative and inspection organisations with adequate
material and human resources in line with the national regulations, while at the same time complying with
Community/Union legislation and taking account of the interests of all the Member States participating in
the establishment of an area in which there are no checks on persons at internal borders. This is also
applicable with regard to creating or networking national files such as the national components of the
Schengen Information System (SIS), SIRENE and VISION.

It must, however, be pointed out that removing internal borders, gradually standardising visa procedures
and external border checks, and closer cooperation in police and legal matters should, in principle, lead to
economies of scale in terms of costs. In addition, some forms of expenditure, such as expenses relating to
the development of SIS II, are already covered by the Community budget.

(2002/C 134 E/200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3085/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Progress with implementation of the CSF programmes and Cohesion Fund projects

Will
the Commission produce a detailed comparative table showing the progress made to date in
implementing (commitments, payments) the programmes under the CSF and the Cohesion Fund in the
four beneficiary countries? Is the Commission satisfied with the progress of the programmes?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat the table of
commitments and payments under the Structural Funds during the 1994-1999 programming period for
the four Member States eligible under the Cohesion Fund. That table gives figures for the Cohesion Fund,
but for 1993-2001.

The actual rate of implementation of commitments, which represents the part of Community assistance
actually paid, can be regarded as an approximate, but not definitive, indicator of the state of progress in
implementing the programmes. This rate is indirectly linked to the actual rate of implementation of
assistance on the ground.

For the Member States eligible under the Cohesion Fund, the rate of implementation of commitments
under the Structural Funds programmes, and therefore the actual rate of
these
programmes on the ground, is above the Community average.

implementation of

The implementation rate under the Cohesion Fund is lower than that of the Structural Funds programmes.
However, these rates are not comparable because the period under consideration is different. Assistance
under the Cohesion Fund is project-based throughout the programming period; a significant share of the
payments made in 2000 and 2001 consists of either the balances of the previous projects or advances on
new decisions; it therefore results in a fall in this rate. In addition, the rules concerning payments under
that Fund are more directly connected with the actual implementation of assistance on the ground.

The overall implementation rate under the Cohesion Fund is, however, satisfactory, with the rate in Ireland
and Portugal being higher than in Greece and Spain.