WRITTEN QUESTION E-0343/02 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Council. Carriage of deceased persons within the EU.
Date: 2002-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU national, Treaty on European Union, approximation of laws, citizens' Europe, death, intra-EU transport

C 205 E/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

exchanges of family visits or the release of prisoners of war. In spite of limited progress, the Council still
deplores the very worrying situation of the Saharan refugees in the Tindouf camps, while emphasising that
the tense situation in the Western Sahara makes it yet more difficult to solve humanitarian issues. That is
also why the Council, which is in regular contact with the UN Secretary-General’s personal envoy, Mr James
Baker, and all parties to the conflict,
is willing to contribute to establishing a climate of confidence
between the parties concerned in order to facilitate an acceptable solution.

(2002/C 205 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0209/02

by Ulpu Iivari (PSE) to the Council

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Return home of corpses within the EU

A growing number of Union citizens currently live in Member States other than their countries of origin.
As a result, more and more are dying outside their home countries. At present, the return home of corpses
from one country to another is regulated by the Berlin agreement, dating back to 1937, and a Council of
Europe Agreement, dating back to 1973. These agreements are now out of date because they are based on
border policing of a type that has ceased to exist. The current situation is causing all kinds of delays and
inconvenience for the grieving relatives of people who have died.

Do the EU Treaties require the Union to guarantee that corpses can be freely sent home within the EU,
when the deceased persons were Union citizens? In addition, would it be possible to draw up a regulation
to govern the return home of corpses whereby a journey from one Member State to another would be as
simple as a journey within the same Member State?

(2002/C 205 E/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0343/02

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Carriage of deceased persons within the EU

A growing number of EU citizens are living in another EU country than their own: many EU citizens work
in another country, tourism continues to increase and ever more retired people from northern Europe are
moving permanently to southern Europe. An inevitable consequence of increased migration and travel is
that, increasingly, EU citizens are dying elsewhere in the EU than in their home country.

At the same time as the EU’s internal market is functioning ever more smoothly, absurd difficulties arise
with the repatriation of a deceased person from one EU Member State to another. This results in needless
cost and distressing delays for the relations of the deceased.

The repatriation of deceased persons from one country to another is governed by the Berlin Convention
(1937) and the Council of Europe Convention on the carriage of deceased persons (Strasbourg 1973).
These Conventions are no longer in keeping with the times since they are based on the kind of border
checks which no longer exist. For example, a zinc coffin is not necessary when transporting a deceased
person (by road) from Strasbourg to Lyon (460 km) but is essential when transporting the deceased person
from Strasbourg to Baden-Baden (50 km). There are no rational hygienic or safety grounds that would
justify this practice.

Does the EU Treaty require the European Union to guarantee the free repatriation of deceased persons
within the EU where the person in question is an EU citizen?

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/95

Is the updating of the relevant provisions pending in the EU or internationally?

Would it be possible to secure the adoption of rules on the repatriation of deceased persons within the EU
that would make repatriation from one Member State to another as simple as transporting a deceased
person within a Member State?

What timetable could be envisaged for taking this matter forward?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0209/02 and E-0343/02

(21 May 2002)

Neither the Treaty on European Union nor the Community’s secondary legislation contains any provisions
on the subject raised in the Honourable Members’ questions.

The Council is therefore unable to answer these questions.

(2002/C 205 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0211/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Unforeseen and excessive financial demands made by the intended chairman of the Convention for

an enlarged Europe

1.
Prior to the decision taken on 15 December 2001 to ask Mr Valery Giscard d’Estaing to act as
chairman of the Convention on the future of Europe, did the Council or any other European Union
institution enter into agreements with him, or give undertakings, regarding his renumeration and that of
his vice-chairmen Giuliano Amato and Jean-Luc Dehaene and regarding exemption from taxation, payment
of expenses, payment of luxury accommodation in Brussels and the provision of support by a staff of 12?

2. What were the Council’s expectations as regards the financial conditions under which Mr Giscard
d’Estaing would carry out his duties? Did the Council take into consideration the fact that Mr Giscard
d’Estaing is not a person who is without employment or who would be forced to give up his job, but
someone who is already guaranteed a steady, and not inconsiderable, income as a former president of
France and former Member of the European Parliament, and who is being offered a unique opportunity to
resume and crown his political career with a very prominent role?

3.
Is the Council surprised at Mr Giscard d’Estaing’s demands? In the light of his request to be paid
EUR 20 000 net a month, does the Council still think he is a suitable person for the duties intended to be
assigned to him, bearing in mind the likely negative impact on efforts to involve citizens to a greater
extent in the operation of EU structures which are often a subject of contention?

4.
Does the Council consider that Mr Giscard d’Estaing’s financial demands can be justified vis-à-vis
European voters? If so, is it prepared to assume responsibility for meeting these demands in whole or in
part by amending the budget?

Did the Council have a conception beforehand of what a reasonable monthly salary for a chairman

5.
of the Convention would be, and does it have one now? What is that sum?

Does this situation justify the Council in approaching other possible candidates, perhaps those who

6.
were previously ascertained to be available, with a view to their accepting the chairmanship?

Sources: Het Parool of 19.1.2002 and the Financieel Dagblad of 22.1.2002