WRITTEN QUESTION E-3480/01 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Fingerprinting.
Date: 2001-12-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: biometrics, database, foreign national, fundamental rights, migration control, police checks

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

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/11

country nationals submitted by the Member States. These other categories refer on the one hand to aliens
who were apprehended in connection with the irregular crossing of the border of a Member State having
come from a third country and who were not turned back and on the other hand to aliens found illegally
present in a Member State. In all cases the fingerprints are taken and submitted for the sole purpose of
helping the Member States to determine which one is competent for dealing with an asylum application
according to the Dublin Convention.

In more general terms there is an ongoing debate on the use of biometrics, that covers also fingerprints
and which,
the
Commission has not envisaged any proposal for taking and recording of fingerprints of immigrants or
Union citizens.

for instance, could be used for securing identity and travel documents. However,

(1) OJ L 316, 15.12.2000.
(2) Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member

States of the European Communities, OJ C 254, 19.8.1997.

(2002/C 301 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3483/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 December 2001)

Subject: Aid to Albania

There is a considerable difference between the commitments made by the EU in the form of financial
assistance to Albania and actual expenditure. What are the reasons for both the EU’s failure to deliver on
its promises and the failure of schemes such as road-building projects, water supply schemes and the
creation of fish markets? What is the Commission doing to resolve the problem?

What is the reason behind the shift from using aid for general economic development, to using it to create
conditions for formal links between Albania and the EU? Does the Commission still support this shift? If
not what is being done to correct it?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

Implementation of Community assistance in Albania over the past years has been delayed by a number of
factors: the unstable internal situation in the country, the limited administrative capacity of the Albanian
authorities to act as a real counterpart, and the lack of implementation and enforcement capacity by
Albania as regards legislation necessary for project implementation (for example, expropriation or land
planning for transport and water infrastructures).

The Commission is currently undertaking a thorough review of ongoing and planned projects in Albania.
This review might lead to project closures and re-programming of project activities and will encompass
also the project on a fish market in Vlora.

An audit of the Commission’s road projects was conducted in 1999. It found that some of the road-
building schemes have faltered because the Albanian Government was unable, in the troubled days of three
years ago, to expropriate the required land, and because some of the initial designs were not appropriate.
To improve the situation,
the quality and risk assessment capacity has been strengthened by the
appointment of civil engineers to the Delegation. Furthermore, to address the relatively weak institutional
environment in Albania, the Commission is assisting the Government in drawing up a master plan for the
country’s road network and offered assistance to elaborate on a road safety plan for Albania. The same
quality and risk assessment approach, paired with institution building support, is applied in the water
sector. Two of the five major road projects concerned were completed in 2001, with the remaining three
in the first half of 2002. Indeed, anyone who travelled two years ago from Tirana, to Durres, Rrogozhine
or Lushnje, and does so again today, will notice the progress that has been made.