WRITTEN QUESTION E-1674/02 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council. Repatriation of illegal immigrants from the EU.
Date: 2002-06-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU visa policy, cooperation agreement (EU), illegal migration, negotiation of an agreement (EU), return migration, third country

C 52 E/88

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

ranging co-operation. The Commission has always stressed that in accordance with the PCA this dialogue
and co-operation is based on the respect of democratic principles and human rights, and requires the
Ukraine to ratify and adhere to the relevant international conventions, including those concerning the
rights of the child.

The Commission is providing technical assistance to Ukraine in order both to address the structural and
legislative reform needs as well as existing shortcomings in the areas of rule of law, judiciary and civil
society. Substantial assistance has also been provided to projects aimed at tackling trafficking in women.

The Commission is not in possession of recent statistics on child adoption in Ukraine. Given the absence
of Community competence in this area, nor would it be appropriate for the Commission to take the sort
of specific political initiative you propose.

However, in its co-operation and regular dialogue with Ukraine, the Commission pays particular attention
to issues related to the rule of law and basic rights.

(2003/C 52 E/101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1674/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(12 June 2002)

Subject: Repatriation of illegal immigrants from the EU

Can the Council confirm that tens of thousands of Chinese citizens are transported across Asia and Europe,
often through the Balkans, to the European Union every year? Is it correct that the Chinese Government
frequently refuses to accept its citizens who return because they have no proof of nationality, and is this
the case even when these nationals cooperate with the authorities in the Member States in identifying
themselves and their countries of origin?

Can the Council list the states which refuse to cooperate with Member States in this way and indicate
whether or not they are recipients of aid from or are party to Association or trade agreements with the
European Union?

Could the Council also indicate which of the Balkan states are exempt from visa requirements and whether
it believes that the imposition of such requirements would be helpful in stemming the flow of illegal
immigration?

Reply

(5 November 2002)

The Council shares the Honourable Member’s concern regarding the large-scale influx of illegal

1.
immigrants and the difficulty of having them repatriated.

2.
The importance of negotiating and concluding readmission agreements with third countries of origin
and transit of illegal immigrants, in devising and implementing an effective repatriation policy, has been
acknowledged and asserted by the European Union on a number of occasions, particularly in the action
plan to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings in the European Union, adopted by
the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 28 February 2002.

3.
In 2000 and 2001 the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate readmission agreements with
six third countries: Morocco, Russia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong and Macao. The Commission has
managed to initial readmission agreements with Hong Kong and Sri Lanka, conclusion of which will have
to be approved by a Council Decision once the European Parliament has delivered its opinion, and is
continuing negotiations with the other four third countries.

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/89

On 16 April 2002 the Council adopted conclusions on criteria for the identification of third
4.
countries with which new readmission agreements need to be negotiated. Those conclusions, in line with
the action plan, not only set out criteria but identify four more third countries for which the Commission
is asked to submit draft negotiating directives for readmission agreements: China, Turkey, Algeria and
Albania.

On 13 June 2002 the Council further authorised the Commission to negotiate a readmission agreement
with Ukraine.

5.
It should also be pointed out that the Seville European Council conclusions, referring expressly to the
action plan, attach priority to speeding up the conclusion of readmission agreements currently being
negotiated and approving new briefs for the negotiation of readmission agreements with countries already
identified by the Council (point 30).

In a broader, more general way, the Seville European Council conclusions add that immigration policy
needs to be built in as a key factor in the Union’s relations with third countries. They point here to the
importance of ensuring the cooperation of countries of origin and transit on readmission, among other
matters, and specify that such readmission should include that of those countries’ own nationals unlawfully
present in a Member State and, under the same conditions, that of other countries’ nationals who can be
shown to have passed through the country in question (point 34).

Lastly, aside from the more specific issue of negotiating and concluding readmission agreements, the
European Council conclusions call for the inclusion, in any future cooperation, association or equivalent
agreement which the European Union or the European Community concludes with any country, of a
clause on joint management of migration flows and on compulsory readmission in the event of illegal
immigration (point 33).

6.
For a list of countries whose nationals require visas, the Honourable Member is referred to Council
Regulation No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in
possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that
requirement (1), as amended by Council Regulation No 2414/2001 of 7 December 2001 (2).

(1) OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 327, 12.12.2001, p. 1.

(2003/C 52 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1685/02

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2002)

Subject: Freezing of accounts

On 27 December 2001, Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (1) on specific restrictive measures directed
against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism came into force.

1.

To date, what sums of money have actually been frozen pursuant to this Regulation?

2.

How can the Member States and/or the Commission monitor enforcement?

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 70.