WRITTEN QUESTION P-2010/02 by Patsy Sörensen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Expulsion of Romanian minors.
Date: 2002-07-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, EU programme, Romania, children's rights, human rights, non-governmental organisation, organised crime, removal, social facilities, young person

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/39

Through various demarches and in particular through the Union high level troika to South Africa of
21 May 2002, the Union has discussed the full implications for Southern Africa of the present instability
and of a further deterioration of the Zimbabwean economy in terms of disinvestment, refugee flows, and
other consequences. The Union has reiterated its willingness to support the inter-party dialogue promoted
by South Africa and Nigeria, to support the population and an orderly land reform process, as illustrated
in the final conclusions of the June 2002 General Affairs Council.

(1) OJ L 50, 21.2.2002.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1345/2002 of 24 July 2002 amending for the second time Council Regulation

(EC) No 310/2002 (cid:1) OJ L 196, 25.7.2002.

(3) OJ L 195, 24.7.2002.

(2003/C 192 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2010/02

by Patsy Sörensen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 July 2002)

Subject: Expulsion of Romanian minors

Is the Commission aware that Belgium in particular is deporting Romanian children to their country of
origin because they have committed offences under pressure from criminal organisations?

Is the Commission aware that one of the reasons is that these often very young children cannot be charged
or held under Belgian law?

Is it correct that in the country of origin there is no provision for the children so that they frequently end
up in criminal circles or living on the streets?

What steps and/or measures is the Commission considering to counter these practices and how, given the
current projects for street children, could it help to ensure that these children are taken care of in an
appropriate manner on their return?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2002)

The Commission is aware of the issue raised by the Honourable Member and of the fact that Belgium is
executing a number of juvenile court judgements on the return of unaccompanied Romanian minors to
their country of origin.

There is no specific Community legislation on the treatment of unaccompanied third-country minors in
Member States covering matters such as the conditions for their reception, stay and return.
Instead
Member States are invited to take account of guidelines on this subject which have been established by a
Council Resolution (1).

In the case referred to by the Honourable Member, the Belgian authorities have explained that these
decisions were made with a view to taking the children away from the criminal organisations that
controlled them and to facilitate their re-integration in their home environment. Alternatives, such as
placing the minors in specialised centres in Belgium, would have not been in the best interest of the child
for practical reasons (unfamiliar environment, language problems, …).

According to the above-mentioned Council Resolution, irrespective of their legal status unaccompanied
minors who are nationals of third countries and find themselves in a Member State are entitled to
protection and basic care in accordance with the provisions of national law. However, where a minor is
not allowed by national law to stay in a Member State, the State concerned may only return the minor to
his/her country of origin if on arrival therein adequate reception and care are available. These can be
provided by parents or other adults who take care of the child, or by governmental or non-governmental
bodies.
the Member States should co-operate with the
authorities of the minor’s country of origin, with international organisations such as Unicef and, where

In such cases the competent authorities of

C 192 E/40

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

appropriate, with non-governmental organisations (NGOs), in order to ensure that care will be provided
upon return of the child. In any case, a minor may not be returned to a third country where this return
would be contrary to the Convention relating to the status of refugees, the European Convention on
Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms or the Convention against Torture and other cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading treatment or Punishment or the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In the particular case of Romanian minors in Belgium, the Commission is informed that such co-operation
has indeed taken place.

In Bucharest and other large cities in Romania there are reception centres for minors, where street children
and other children in need of protection can be hosted under the responsibility of the local Child
Protection Department, sometimes in co-operation with NGOs. In these centres, the legal and social
situation of the children is analysed with a view to re-integrating them into their families or, if this is not
possible, to developing a care plan. Bilateral agreements between Romania and Member States have been
concluded or are being negotiated on this issue.

The Commission continues to support the Romanian Government in its efforts to improve childcare
policies. At present a EUR 25 million PHARE programme is being implemented in Romania, providing
funding for the closure of large old-style institutions, for developing alternative local child protection
services and for a public awareness campaign on prevention of abandonment and re-integration of
children into natural or foster families. As part of this programme, reception centres are eligible for
financing. This programme will be followed by a similar programme which will start soon and for which
EUR 10 million have been committed.

(1) Council Resolution of 26 June 1997 on unaccompanied minors who are nationals of third countries (cid:1) OJ C 221,

19.7.1997.

(2003/C 192 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2018/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Continued obstruction of shipping on the Danube as a result of the 1999 war in Serbia

1.
Can the Commission confirm that of the three bridges destroyed in the 1999 war which spanned the
Danube between the centre of the Serbian town Novi Sad and Petrovaradin on the south bank, only the
middle bridge, the Varadinski Most joining Bulevar Mihajla Pupina and Beogradska Ulica, has been
replaced by a new bridge, while the wide bridge in the west near Bulevar Oslobodjenja has been replaced
by a heavily used pontoon bridge (Most na Barzama near Ulica Maksima Gorkog) and the combined road
and rail bridge in the east has been replaced by a temporary rail bridge situated to the west of the ruins?

2. What are the effects of the presence of a pontoon bridge and a temporary bridge in Novi Sad on
inland waterway transit traffic between the Netherlands, Germany and Austria (EU Member States) and the
applicant countries Slovakia and Hungary, on the one hand, and Romania and Bulgaria to the south and
east, on the other?

3.
As a result of war damage, are there places other than Novi Sad (cid:1) for example between Smederevo
and Kovin to the east of Belgrade (cid:1) where the width of passage or the headroom, and hence the permitted
volume of shipping, is still smaller, as a result of damage, temporary bridges or shipwrecks, than the
dimensions imposed by the locks in the dam in the Iron Gates (Djerdap) between Kladovo in Serbia and
Dobreta-Turnu Severin in Romania?

4. What are the prospects of restoring the capacity of the Danube for shipping and that of the
connections between its banks to their full pre-1999 levels?

5.
How will the activities referred to in question 4 be financed? What responsibility has the EU taken
for them and what responsibility will it still take, in view inter alia of the importance of the Danube as the
main route for transporting freight within the EU in its likely future volume?