WRITTEN QUESTION E-1077/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. US pressure on the EU to restrict human rights by making changes to criminal law and law enforcement.
Date: 2002-04-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU visa policy, European Union, United States, border control, cooperation policy, fight against crime, human rights, public safety, terrorism

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/35

other beneficiaries. This operation implies that some educated women will first conduct a survey to
identify the most vulnerable women, among the widows, handicapped and internally displaced people.
This kind of programme ensures the participation of women coming from a variety of socio-economic
classes, from educated to illiterate women, each of them using their knowledge and/or manual ability. The
programmes have proved successful and will be continued as they provide an immediate impact on
people’s livelihood.

(2003/C 92 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1012/02

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2002)

Subject: Delay in answering question on funding of the Convention

the
I have received no answer from the Commission to my questions concerning the funding of
Convention on the Future of Europe within the six-week timescale laid down in the rules (Written
Question E-0337/02). Bearing in mind the importance of accountability in the Commission, shouldn’t
regard be paid to these rules?

To repeat my questions therefore: What is the attendance allowance for members of the Convention on
the Future of Europe? What basis is it calculated on and by whom?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2002)

The written question E-0337/02 by the Honourable Member (1) was answered late by the Commission,
because it was considered adequate to draft a common reply to this question and to the written questions
E-0139/02 by Mr Garriga Polledo (1) and E-0419/02 by Mr Sjöstedt (1), and to update it following the
procedural developments after the adoption of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 February 2002 on
the financing of the Convention on the future of the Union.

By letter of 13 March 2002, the Secretary General of the European Convention transmitted the draft
budget of the Convention to the Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The Commission gave its
approval on 3 April 2002, and the Parliament voted its approval on 10 April 2002. The Budget of the
Convention for 2002 was adopted on 18 April 2002 by the Representatives of the Member State
Governments.

Concerning the attendance allowance of the Convention, the understanding of the Commission is that no
attendance allowance is foreseen in the Convention’s budget, except for the members of the Convention’s
Praesidium. The General Secretariat of the Convention is responsible for drafting and proposing the
Convention’s budget, and may therefore complete this information or provide further details if requested
by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 15.

(2003/C 92 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1077/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: US pressure on the EU to restrict human rights by making changes to criminal

law and law

enforcement

1.
Can the Commission confirm the report by the British NGO ‘Statewatch’ that there is not only talk of
coordination between the Member States of the EU in the area of integration of criminal law and law

C 92 E/36

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

enforcement but that, under pressure from the United States, efforts are also being made to establish a
trans-Atlantic axis of police and judicial cooperation which would mean that the EU could no longer
determine its own criminal law policy independently?

Is it correct that in recent months, following a letter dated 16 October 2001 from US President Bush
2.
to the Commission President, Mr Prodi, there have been 12 meetings to discuss American demands
concerning the issue of visas, passport checks, border controls and the sharing with the US of all
information on criminals, asylum seekers whose applications have been processed and rejected, deported
foreigners and lost or stolen identity papers? Is this also occurring without the privacy protection rules in
force in the United States being applied to non-US citizens?

3.
Is it correct that in December a working document was drawn up on behalf of the Commission with
the aim of satisfying American demands to a large extent by restricting existing human rights provisions
within the EU, not least by accepting that in future judges can make individual rights enshrined in the
European Convention on Human Rights subordinate to considerations of State security and under which
torture and inhuman forms of imprisonment would be tolerated?

4. What are the implications of this development for groups and individuals within EU Member States
who are conducting cross-border campaigns against globalisation,
liberalisation, commercialisation,
differences in prosperity, expansion and war?

5. What does this development mean in terms of making European citizens subject to US criminal law
and extradition to the United States, i.e. to a country which makes a distinction between US and non-US
citizens, which does not guarantee that prison sentences can be served in the prisoner’s own country and
that even applies the death penalty?

6.
How does the Commission intend to ensure that the human rights rules applying in the EU can be
better protected against outside pressure than in recent months? In the Commission’s view what limits
must not be exceeded in this context? When will the secret negotiations be concluded and will the
European Parliament receive a report on the different input of the US and EU and of any agreement that
may be reached?

Source: Dutch newspaper ‘De Volkskrant’, 22 March 2002.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2002)

On 21 September 2001 the European Council adopted an Action Plan in the fight against terrorism (1).
Among the activities envisaged in the Action Plan are measures aimed at improving cooperation with the
United States.

As set out in the Council Conclusions of 26 April 2002, a meeting with the United States was held on
12 April 2002 in the framework of the Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum.

At this meeting, the Union responded positively to American proposals for cooperation on border control
and migration management forwarded by the United States on 26 October 2001, covering:

(cid:1) closer scrutiny of transit passengers and of transit areas of international airports by immigration

police. Boarding gate checks;

(cid:1) identification of a list of data to be exchanged between border management services of the Member

States and of North America. Modalities for such exchanges;

(cid:1) broadened European Carrier participation in APIS (Advanced Passenger Information System);

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/37

(cid:1) increased use of European transit facilities to support the return of criminal/inadmissible aliens from

the United States to Europe or the Country of origin;

(cid:1) co-ordination United States-Union co-operation projects in the area of border security;

(cid:1) encourage adherence by other States to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards

in passport/visa issuance;

(cid:1) immediate information of United States and other key partners when a breach/theft of passport/visa

security is detected;

(cid:1) co-ordination of false document training;

(cid:1) improve co-operation in removals of status violators/criminals/inadmissibles.

Pursuant to the Union Action Plan, the Commission adopted on 5 December 2001 a Working Document
on ‘The relationship between safeguarding internal security and complying with international protection
obligations and instruments’.

The aforementioned Council Conclusions also set out that in the general framework of the Union’s police
and judicial co-operation with the United States, the Council authorised the Presidency to negotiate an
agreement on judicial co-operation in criminal matters, including terrorism, on the basis of Articles 24 and
38 of the Treaty on the European Union.

The negotiating mandate covers in particular, extradition, including the temporary surrender for trials and
mutual legal assistance including exchange of data, the setting up of joint investigation teams, the giving of
evidence (via video conference) and the establishment of single contact points.

As regards extradition, the Union will make any agreement on extradition conditional on the provision of
guarantees on the non-imposition of capital punishment sentences, and the securing of existing levels of
constitutional guarantees with regards to life sentences.

Already all 15 Member States have bilateral extradition agreements with the United States.

The future agreement should in all cases safeguard the efficiency of the existing bilateral agreements
between the Member States and the United States.

The level of protection of human rights as defined by the European Convention of Human Rights and
confirmed by the Union Charter of Fundamental Rights will certainly be used as reference for fixing the
position of the Union and of the Commission.

Negotiations will be led by the Presidency assisted by the Commission. The Presidency will report to the
Council on progress made after each negotiation meeting with the United States.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(2003/C 92 E/040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1084/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Restarting of work on the Deurganck dock and compensatory measures announced by the Flemish

authorities

On 14 December 2001 the Flemish Parliament adopted a decree declaring that the works, operations and
facilities required to construct the Deurganck dock on the left bank of the Scheldt and bring it into
operation were of urgent general and strategic interest (Belgian Official Journal, 20 December 2001).