WRITTEN QUESTION P-2011/02 by Hans-Peter Martin (PSE) to the Council. Number and scale of Council meetings.
Date: 2002-07-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Council, ministerial meeting, operation of the Institutions, summit meeting

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/125

which may be invoked by all signatory states to the Schengen Agreement under its Article 2 to re-establish
controls at its internal frontiers. There is no reason to suppose that this group of Portuguese citizens
embodied any special threat, or indeed any threat at all, to the Spanish state; and even if that were the
case, it is under no circumstances acceptable, whether in Spain, Portugal or any other EU Member State,
for the authorities to react in so forcible and heavy-handed a fashion as the Spanish police did in this case.

What action does the Commission intend to take, in its role as guardian of the Treaties, to ensure that in
future the freedoms (especially freedom of movement and freedom to demonstrate) and the fundamental
rights of European citizens are not called in question as happened in this incident?

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-1975/02 and P-1987/02
given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Article 2 (2) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement stipulates that Member States can
reintroduce border checks for a limited period where public policy or national security so require. This is
done under exceptional circumstances, as a preventive measure to avoid the risk that people take
advantage of free movement in order to endanger the public order or the public security of a Member
State, notably when a demonstration is planned to take place there.

Border controls shall be carried out according to existing Community law in the field of free movement of
Union citizens. In this respect it must be recalled that the right to free movement, conferred by the Treaty
on the European Union to each citizen of the Union, can be restricted on grounds of public policy, public
security or public health.

Measures taken on these grounds shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual
concerned and be motivated by a present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental
interests of society. Moreover, such measures must be applied in accordance with the principle of
proportionality.

There is no doubt that citizens have the right to freely express their opinion and to assemble peacefully,
rights reflected in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Union Charter of Fundamental
Rights. They must therefore be able to enjoy these rights without a threat to their security, to other
people’s security or to property. Member States are sometimes faced with the fact that people abuse these
rights by taking advantage of legitimate public demonstrations to carry out acts of violence.

The Commission recalls that the primary responsibility for the maintenance of law and order lies with the
Member States.

According to the above-mentioned provision, Member States can decide to introduce border checks for a
limited period where public policy or national security so require. It depends thus on the assessment of
Member States, whether border checks will be reintroduced during future summits.

(2003/C 92 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2011/02

by Hans-Peter Martin (PSE) to the Council

(2 July 2002)

Subject: Number and scale of Council meetings

A debate is taking place on the number and scale of Council meetings and portfolio-specific Councils.

Does the Council Presidency think that there are too many or too few Council meetings in general and/or
portfolio-specific Council meetings in particular?

What changes in this connection would the Council Presidency welcome?

Is the Council Presidency satisfied with the frequency and duration of attendance by heads of government
and/or portfolio ministers?

C 92 E/126

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

In its Seville conclusions (21 and 22 June 2002), the European Council adopted a number of measures
aimed at improving the functioning of the Council and of the European Council. Among those measures
there featured prominently a very appreciable reduction in the number of specialised configurations of the
Council, which have now been brought down to nine instead of sixteen; this should lead to a reduction in
the number of meetings. At the same time, this measure should contribute to rationalising the work of the
Council by concentrating it on essential business, and to increasing the vital consistency between the
various policies of the Union on the eve of enlargement. With regard to the presence of ministers or heads
of government at the above meetings, the Honourable Member may refer to the press releases in which
their presence is recorded and which show, in general, very regular attendance.

The Council invites the Honourable Member to refer to the Council Decision of 22 July 2002 which
transposed the new list of specialised configurations into its Rules of Procedure (1).

(1) OJ L 230, 28.7.2002, pp. 7 et seq.

(2003/C 92 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2027/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Assistance for children with haemophilia in the ex-Soviet Union

The situation of children with haemophilia is particularly serious in the ex-Soviet Union because of the
scarcity of clotting factors, which are vital for treatment of the illness. None of them can afford this type of
therapy due to the high costs of, on average, EUR 500 per month. They suffer pointlessly, confined to
wheelchairs due to their articular haematoma, regularly hospitalised for transfusions and isolated from
their peers, since they cannot play.

Public, private and voluntary bodies, in Italy, and of course also in other European countries, provide
assistance to the children through consignments of clotting factors in the knowledge that they will not be
enough to cover all their needs. The different voluntary programmes are not coordinated and sometimes
come up against bureaucratic obstacles in relation to customs and health regulations.

Therefore, will the Commission:

1. promote the establishment of an information network at Community level of the local centres of
blood products in order that at least a small quantity of clotting factors are distributed to the ex-Soviet
countries?

2.

3.

call on governments, and in particular health ministers, to undertake to coordinate financial assistance
for the collection and authorised despatch of clotting factors in cooperation with the health minister
of the Russian Federation?

undertake to offer its services for humanitarian aid in terms of monitoring requirements and
coordinating the authorised despatch of clotting factors in cooperation with the Russian authorities?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

The Community’s aid instruments for Russia and NIS are limited to technical assistance through the Tacis
programme and emergency humanitarian aid through the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO). The treatment
of haemophilic children does not, unfortunately, fall into either category. Neither programme has the
capacity to maintain any long-term development programmes involving continuous monitoring and
dispatch of physical goods. Consequently, the focus of support for haemophilic children should be the
relevant local organisations, like the Russian Haemophilia Society.