WRITTEN QUESTION E-1589/02 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Carriers' liability.
Date: 2002-06-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Convention on Human Rights, United Kingdom, illegal migration, interpretation of the law, liability, migration control, right to justice, transport company

C 242 E/2

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

(2003/C 242 E/002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1587/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Carriers’ liability

Further to my questions on carriers’ liability (E-0488/02 (cid:1) 0493/02) (1) and the Commission’s reply of
4 April 2002, could the Commission comment on the following point:

is more frequently advocated,

In the Commission’s answer to the question concerning the refusal of a potential asylum-seeker to board a
flight because of an airline’s fear of being fined, can it be interpreted that the Commission shares a view
that
the Geneva Convention obliges Contracting States to offer
protection to persecuted persons, but does not oblige Contracting States to ensure that persecuted persons
dispose of a means of reaching their territory to seek protection? Shifting immigration control tasks to
carriers and requiring entry visas are therefore not, in the opinion of those who share this view, contrary
to the Geneva Convention. If the Commission does not share this view, can the Commission comment on
it?

that

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 45.

(2003/C 242 E/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1588/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Carriers’ liability

Further to my questions on carriers’ liability (E-0488/02 (cid:1) 0493/02) (1) and the Commission’s reply of
4 April 2002, could the Commission comment on the following point:

Even with the use of the most sophisticated equipment and the best possible and meticulous scrutiny of
travel documents, documented or undocumented asylum-seekers still manage to arrive in EU Member
States and the transporting carrier is fined. In huge international airports such as London Heathrow or
Frankfurt, travellers dispose of a wealth of opportunities to dispose of their travel documents, hand them
over to a facilitator or receive some other document from a facilitator travelling on board the same flight,
before having to present themselves to the immigration control desk. Airlines have been and continue to
be fined in such cases. The Commission will no doubt disapprove of such an interpretation of carriers’
liability, but it is a reality that cannot be ignored. What can the Commission propose to remedy such a no-
win situation for carriers?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 45.

(2003/C 242 E/004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1589/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Carriers’ liability

Further to my questions on carriers’ liability (E-0488/02 (cid:1) 0493/02) (1) and the Commission’s reply of
4 April 2002, could the Commission comment on the following point:

Can the European Commission comment on the judgement of a British High Court judge who ruled on
5 December 2001 that holding lorry drivers responsible for transporting stowaways is ‘unworkable in
practice and unfair in law’, that the fine of GBP 2 000 per stowaway (much lower than the amount
required under the EU Directive of June 2001) is ‘ruinous for many persons of ordinary means’ and could

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/3

amount to violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular its Article 6 on the right
to a fair trial and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 on the protection of property (since a driver risks having his
vehicle confiscated if he cannot pay the fine immediately).

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 45.

(2003/C 242 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1590/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Carriers’ liability

Further to my questions on carriers’ liability (E-0488/02 (cid:1) 0493/02) (1) and the Commission’s reply of
4 April 2002, could the Commission comment on the following point:

Since the Commission continues to share the view that carriers’ liability legislation ‘may be an efficient tool
in fighting illegal immigration’ and the Commission is apparently also of the view that such legislation
should be fully harmonised and applied to all means of transport, does the European Commission also feel
it necessary, for the sake of consistency and of wanting to avoid double standards, to impose carriers’
liability legislation on taxi drivers as well as owners of private vehicles in regions close to the EU external
borders? It may interest the Commission to know that this is already the case in at least two Member
States, Greece and Spain.

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 45.

(2003/C 242 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1591/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Carriers’ liability

Further to my questions on carriers’ liability (E-0488/02 (cid:1) 0493/02) (1) and the Commission’s reply of
4 April 2002, could the Commission comment on the following point:

The Commission’s comment on the ruling of the Austrian Constitutional Court that it did not challenge
the principle of carriers’ liability as a means of restricting illegal immigration is indeed correct. However, as
the Commission is aware, courts do not have the habit of responding to questions which are not raised
and the Austrian Constitutional Court was not asked for an opinion on whether carriers’ liability is a
means of restricting illegal immigration.

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 45.

(2003/C 242 E/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1592/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Carriers’ liability

Further to my questions on carriers’ liability (E-0488/02 (cid:1) 0493/02) (1) and the Commission’s reply of
4 April 2002, could the Commission comment on the following point: