WRITTEN QUESTION E-3598/01 by Ilka Schröder (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. So-called troublemaker letters from the police to persons deemed likely to take part in protests against the Laeken Summit.
Date: 2002-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Brussels region, European Convention on Human Rights, Germany, free movement of persons, public safety, restriction of liberty, summit meeting

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/11

means that the procedure required to enforce in one Member State a judgment issued in another will be
considerably simplified and hence made more effective.
the Commission is currently
completing preparation of a proposal to introduce a European enforcement order for uncontested claims,
which would do away with exequatur for certain claims.

In addition,

(1) OJ L 12, 16.1.2001.

(2002/C 277 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3598/01

by Ilka Schröder (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: So-called ‘troublemaker letters’ from the police to persons deemed likely to take part in protests

against the Laeken Summit

According to media reports, e.g. in the issue of the Berliner Zeitung of 10 December 2001, during the first
half of December, in the run-up to the Laeken Summit, persons in a number of German Länder deemed
likely to take part in protests against the summit were warned not to leave the country or even prevented
from so doing. For example, in Baden-Württemburg individuals were banned from leaving the country and
required to report to the police, and in Berlin passports and identity cards were withdrawn.

In Göttingen, the police sent persons presumed to be anti-EU protesters a document headed ‘troublemaker
letter’. The letter urges the recipient not to take part in ‘demonstration-like events’ during the period from
13 to 15 December 2001, stating that only in this way could the person concerned avoid police measures
in the context of risk prevention (up to and including a ban on crossing into Belgium from Germany) or
criminal proceedings in response to offences committed during such events. The Göttingen police
authority referred to a file on violent offenders, set up in November 2000, as the basis for the measures.

In the light of previous answers to Members’ questions, it should be pointed out that the protests were to
take place in connection with an EU Summit. Since there is no such thing as a European police force, the
relevant police measures are carried out by national or regional forces.

Should the Commission not feel responsible for the issues raised below, could it please give reasons in
each case:

@ Is the Commission aware of the legal basis which the German authorities have used in setting up this
file which clearly includes details of persons who must be regarded as innocent of any offence?

@ What view does the Commission take of this restriction on individuals’ fundamental rights, which
represents, for example, a breach of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and
Articles 11 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

@ This practice prevents people from exercising their fundamental rights as European citizens. What

steps does the Commission plan to take in order to put a stop to this practice?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2002)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member primarily concern the compatibility with Community law
of measures restricting freedom of movement taken by one Member State on the grounds of public policy.

C 277 E/12

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

The right to move and reside freely in the territory of another Member State is a fundamental right
conferred directly on each citizen of the Union by the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC).
However, limitations may be placed on this right on the grounds of public policy, public security or public
health.

The measures taken by the Member States on the grounds of public policy must be assessed in the light of
Directive 64/221/EEC (1) and the case law of the Court of Justice. Limitations on the rights guaranteed by
the EC Treaty imposed in the interests of public policy and public security must not exceed what is
necessary to safeguard these interests (2).

It is for the national authorities to assess the specific situation and then take appropriate measures that are
compatible with Community law. The measures taken to protect public policy and public security must, in
particular, be applied in accordance with the principle of proportionality. Proportionality requires there to
be a justification for the measure, a proper balance between the measure implemented and the objective
being pursued and a balance between the interests of the individual and those of the State concerned.

With regard to the creation of files, the Member States are authorised to use data for the purpose of
protecting public policy, public security or public health in connection with measures covered by Directive
64/221/EEC, provided that the provisions on data protection are fully observed. This means, for example,
that personal data must be accurate, relevant and not excessive and must be used solely for specified,
explicit and legitimate purposes.

(1) Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the
movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or
public health (OJ B 56, 4.4.1964).
(2) Case 36/75 Rutili [1975] ECR II-1219.

(2002/C 277 E/010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3643/01

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2002)

Subject: Terrorism

With reference to the Council Regulation on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons
and entities with a view to combating international terrorism (COM(2001) 569 @ C5-0665/2001 @ 2001/
0228(CNS)) and the recommendation by the European Parliament that the Annex listing the actual groups
or persons should be drawn up on the basis of a proposal by the Commission or a Member State, what
steps are being taken by the Commission to ensure that the terrorist groups which are actively engaged
against EU Member States and candidate countries for EU membership (such as IRA, UFF, PKK; DHKP-C,
N17 and ETA, for example) are included on the list of proscribed organisations?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

The list of persons, groups and entities against whom specific measures aimed at combating terrorism will
be taken is established by a CFSP Commun position of the Council. The decision to include names on that
list will be based on precise information or material from the Member States which indicates that a
decision has been taken by a competent authority in respect of the persons, groups and entities concerned,
irrespective of whether it concerns the instigation of investigations or prosecution for a terrorist act, an
attempt to perpetrate such an act, participation in such an act or facilitation of such an act, based on
serious and credible evidence or clues, or condemnation for such deeds (Article 1(4) of the Common
Position).