WRITTEN QUESTION E-3214/01 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Meeting of 4 November 2001 in London.
Date: 2001-11-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Political Union, United States, foreign policy, ministerial meeting, terrorism, the EU's international role

C 160 E/74

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

If so, on what grounds was a residence permit refused?

If such a case has occurred, can the Commission tell me how it dealt with it?

If a legal spouse has not yet been refused a residence permit, can you tell me how you would act in
support of your officials if a residence permit were refused?

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 131.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2002)

As the Honourable Member will understand, the nature of the response to her question P-2438/01 was in
part determined by the desire of the Commission to provide maximum detail.

In response to her current question:

0 The Dutch law of 21 December 2000 recognising same-sex marriage entered into force on 1 April
2001. As a result, the Commission decided to put all officials on an equal footing by granting them
the same advantages, whether they are married under the above-mentioned law or under any other
national law relating to marriage.

0 The granting of a residence permit is obviously a matter for the national authorities concerned.
However, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that up to now, no case of refusal to
grant a residence permit to the spouse of a Commission official in any of the Member States has been
reported to its Administration. The national authorities of Belgium have informed the Commission
that residence permits would be issued as long as the marriage is officially recognised by the official’s
employer.

0 However, bearing in mind the fact that the Dutch law recognising same-sex marriage was adopted
only recently, only three cases of marriage under this law have so far been registered by the
Commission. Furthermore, none of the spouses of the officials concerned is a national of a third
country.

0 The Commission considers that the notion of ‘spouse’ in the Community instruments regarding the
right of residence extends, in principle, to spouses of the same sex when the national legislation of a
Member State permits marriage between two persons of the same sex and grants that marriage the
same legal effects as heterosexual marriages. Therefore, if a residence permit was to be refused to an
official’s legal spouse by a Member State’s national authority, in compliance with national law, the
Commission would raise the matter with those national authorities.

0 The Honourable Member will have to address her question relating to the other Institutions to those

Institutions separately.

(2002/C 160 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3214/01

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Meeting of 4 November 2001 in London

On 4 November 2001 a meeting was held, on the invitation of the British Prime Minister, bringing
together the French President, the Prime Ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Ireland, the Belgian
Prime Minister and President-in-Office of the European Council, and the EU’s High Representative for the
CFSP. The declared aim of this meeting was to define the contribution of each of the Member States
terrorism, as now concretised in the war against
concerned to the US effort against

international

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/75

Afghanistan. At this meeting, the Member States concerned attended as such and did not formally
represent the EU. However, this formal differentiation could not conceal the fact that the government
representatives were there by reason of their countries’ EU membership. This entailed discrimination
against other Member States and a de facto takeover of the functions of the Union institutions.

Has the Council taken any position on this deplorable action by certain of the EU Member States? Is the
Council aware that the ‘special’ character of the strategic alliance linking the UK with the US is not only
tending to substitute the EU’s relations with that country but is endangering the very independent
existence of the EU’s foreign policy?

Reply

(25/26 March 2002)

As it has already had occasion to explain, in its reply to Question H-0900/01 put by Anna Karamanou for
Question Time at the European Parliament’s plenary session in Strasbourg in December 2001, the Council
has never had to specifically discuss the meeting mentioned by the Honourable Member and so it is unable
to state any position on the matter.

Having been invited to the meeting, the Presidency for its part contacted the members of the European
Council who had not been invited to ask whether they thought it should attend. These contacts made clear
that there was broad encouragement for it to do so.

At the Presidency’s request, the Council’s subordinate bodies were briefed the next day on the substance of
the discussions by the Secretary-General/High Representative for the CFSP, Mr Solana, who had been
invited to take part alongside the Presidency.

The Council would point out that, following the guidelines issued by the European Council 0 which has
met to discuss this subject on two occasions 0 the Union has made every effort to give a coordinated
overall response to the 11 September attacks by adopting a detailed action plan against terrorism and by
unequivocally declaring its full support for the action taken against all aspects of terrorism and its total
solidarity with the United States. The European Council has also reaffirmed its firm determination to act in
concert in all circumstances.

(2002/C 160 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3218/01

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: EU funding for transport in the Peloponnese

It has been brought to our attention that roads are being built with EU funding in Argolid and Arcadia in
the Peloponnese, Greece, while no money is going to improve the railway which circles the region, which
is badly in need of improvement.

Please could you inform me: Under which programme are these roads being funded?

Is the Commission making any attempt to ensure that railways receive investment in parallel with road
development funded by the EU, in the Peloponnese and in Europe in general?

What is the reasoning, and what factors have been taken into account, behind decisions on transport
infrastructure development in the Peloponnese?

Has there been an Environmental Impact Assessment for EU-funded projects in the Peloponnese?