WRITTEN QUESTION E-3455/01 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission. Conditions for asylum seekers in EU countries.
Date: 2001-12-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, admission of aliens, comparative study, political refugee, rights of aliens, social-security benefit

C 301 E/8

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

(2002/C 301 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3455/01

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(14 December 2001)

Subject: Conditions for asylum seekers in EU countries

In view of the criticisms by the Belgian Government among others of the new Danish Government’s
planned changes to aliens policy, will the Commission provide a summary showing how each individual
Member State deals with asylum seekers and immigrants, covering the following aspects:

1.

Financial aid per asylum seeker;

2. Housing allowance per asylum seeker;

3.

Financial aid to recognised refugees;

4. Housing allowance per recognised refugee;

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Financial aid per child of asylum seekers;

Percentage of refugees in open asylum centres;

Percentage of refugees in closed asylum centres;

Financial aid to adults in reunited families;

Financial aid to children of reunited families;

10. Terms of access to education/training for refugees and immigrants from non-EU countries;

11. Terms of access to health care for refugees and immigrants from non-EU countries?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

The Commission, in 1999, commissioned a study (1), which was delivered at the beginning of November
2000, ‘on the legal framework and administrative practices in the Member States of the European Union
seeking
regarding reception conditions
international protection’.

for asylum seekers, displaced persons and other persons

The purpose of
framework and the
administrative practices in the Member States with regard to reception conditions for persons seeking
international protection, and to analyse and compare the information gathered.

the study has been to gather information regarding the legal

The mapping and comparative analysis of rules and practices cover the following areas:

(cid:1) arrangements immediately on arrival,

(cid:1) accommodation,

(cid:1) access to education,

(cid:1) means of subsistence,

(cid:1) medical care,

(cid:1) access to the labour market,

(cid:1) detention and restrictions on free movement,

(cid:1) special treatment for vulnerable groups.

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/9

The study further examines the following themes:

(cid:1) differences in reception conditions with reference to the stage of the asylum procedure and the type of

status sought or granted;

(cid:1) the respective roles of national, regional and local governmental authorities and non-governmental

organisations (NGOs) involved in handling persons seeking protection;

(cid:1) co-operation between Member States on asylum matters;

(cid:1) Member States’ proposals to change current national laws or practices.

It seems that the study, both in its comparative part and in the country profiles, will be able to fully
provide the information requested.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/unit/immigration_en.htm.

(2002/C 301 E/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3469/01

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(14 December 2001)

Subject: Debate with Commissioner Verheugen in Strasbourg on 14 November 2001

In connection with the presentation of the interim progress report on enlargement by Commission
President Prodi and enlargement Commissioner Verheugen in Strasbourg on 14 November 2001,
Mr Verheugen was asked about the European Court of Auditors’ criticism concerning the PHARE and
TACIS programmes.

In its report the Court of Auditors criticises the fact that there are still no internal criteria for assessing the
results of the PHARE and TACIS programmes as regards improving nuclear power plant safety in the CEEC
and NIS. Commissioner Verheugen, when asked for his position on the Court of Auditors’ criticism, stated
that he was unaware of the rebuke. However, his own departments wrote the reply to this chapter of the
Court of Auditors’ annual report for 2000 (paragraph 5.48),
if
accession negotiations also can be continued without formal EU rules on safety standards, then an
evaluation of the effectiveness of its PHARE and TACIS programmes ought to be possible without those
rules, too, which the Court of Auditors continues to insist upon.

in which the Commission states that,

In connection with this debate:

1. Can the Commission say whether it can be assumed that information flow and communications
between the Commissioner and his own departments are not the best and that that is why the
Commissioner was not aware of the Court of Auditors’ criticism?

2.

If not, can it be assumed that the Commissioner attaches little importance to the Court of Auditors’
criticism?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The Commission presented its Progress Reports 2001 to the Parliament on 13 November 2001 (1). On the
same day, but under a different agenda point and with different attendance, the Court of Auditors
presented its Annual Report 2000 to Parliament. The issue in question was addressed in chapter 5 of the
Court of Auditors’ report, titled ‘External Relations’, rather than chapter 6 ‘Enlargement’. The Annual
Report 2000 furthermore relates to a period prior to the re-organisation of responsibilities among the
Commission and the transfer of responsibilities for the PHARE nuclear safety programme cycle to the
Enlargement Directorate General.