WRITTEN QUESTION E-3469/01 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission. Debate with Commissioner Verheugen in Strasbourg on 14 November 2001.
Date: 2001-12-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European Commissioner, European Court of Auditors, interinstitutional relations (EU), operation of the Institutions, project evaluation

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.

C 301 E/10

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

The Commission attaches great importance to the Court of Auditors and its role and responsibilities within
the institutional
to provide
comprehensive responses to the Courts’ observations, as well as to implement its recommendations.

framework. The Commission is engaged in a permanent endeavour

Already in its immediate oral response to the question raised during the above-mentioned debate, the
Commission highlighted the fundamental problem lying behind the findings raised by the Court. The
Community has never developed harmonised safety standards for the utilisation of nuclear energy. On the
contrary, the Council has repeatedly underlined that no competencies for the safety of nuclear energy
production should be transferred from the national to the Community level. Regardless of this stern
position, the Member States have called upon the Commission to promote nuclear safety in the Central
and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) and New Independent States (NIS).

Therefore, PHARE and TACIS assistance in the nuclear field cannot be measured against non-existent
common Community criteria, but can only be designed and evaluated on the basis of the best international
technical and scientific advice and safety practices available. In the implementation stage, furthermore, the
Commission undertakes constant efforts to further refine logical criteria in order to maintain and improve
the effectiveness of financial assistance in spite of the difficulties arising from the position taken by
Member States.

There can be no serious doubt that the situation of nuclear safety in the CEEC and NIS has substantially
improved since 1989, thanks to the combined efforts of all parties involved.

(1) COM(2001) 700 final.

(2002/C 301 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3480/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 December 2001)

Subject: Fingerprinting

One issue which recurs in the debate on external and internal security is the fingerprinting of immigrants
or even of all Union citizens. It is claimed that fingerprinting would be an affront to human dignity.
I would point out in this connection that all Italian nationals subject to military service have their
fingerprints taken in the course of their medical examination, without this causing any debate in Italy over
the last decades on affronts to human dignity.

Furthermore,
it has been repeatedly found, especially in the case of immigrants, that criminals have
extended their stay in Union territory by changing their names or forging their papers, although they had
already been deported or sentenced to imprisonment. This would be easier to prevent if the use of
fingerprinting put a stop to changes of identity and facilitated identification after crimes.

With this in mind, what
is the Commission’s indicate its attitude towards the introduction of the
fingerprinting of immigrants from non-Community countries, and what action has it already taken in this
connection?

Will the Commission also state whether it is considering recording the fingerprints of all Union citizens on
security grounds?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

The Commission is at the time being focused on the implementation of the Council Regulation (EC)
No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 (1) concerning the establishment of Eurodac for the comparison of
fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention (2). For this purpose the Eurodac Central
Unit collects and/or compares the fingerprints of asylum applicants and certain other categories of third