WRITTEN QUESTION E-2291/02 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Council. Rule of law in Austria.
Date: 2002-07-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, United States, competence of the Member States, extradition, human rights, judicial proceedings, rule of law

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/149

(2003/C 92 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2290/02

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Council

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Conditions for the reception of asylum-seekers in the United Kingdom

Does the Council believe that the plan of the UK Government to build an accommodation centre for
750 asylum-seekers at Throckmorton, on a former airfield used as a burial site for animals during the
Foot-and-Mouth crisis, near a small village of 160 inhabitants and with only 2 593 people living in the
surrounding 4 parishes, allows ‘sufficient scope for guaranteeing access to all benefits’ referred to in
forthcoming Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum-seekers in Member
States?

Does the Council believe that such a site is appropriate to ensure ‘harmonious relationships between local
communities and accommodation centres’
‘access to the education system under similar
conditions as nationals of the host Member State’ for minor children (Article 10(1), or ‘the possibility of
communicating with relatives, legal advisers’ (Article 14(2))?

(recital 14),

Does the Council believe that Member States should not engage in individual asylum policies which
contradict imminent policies and legislation of the European Union?

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

The Council does not have information on the plans to build the accommodation centre referred to in the
question from the Honourable Member.

As regards the draft Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum-seekers
in Member States, the Honourable Member is reminded that, pursuant to Article 211 TEC, once the
Directive has been adopted it will be for the Commission to ensure that the provisions thereof are applied
in the different Member States.

(2003/C 92 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2291/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Council

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Rule of law in Austria

Is the Council aware of the case of Mr Shalom Weiss, a US citizen convicted of fraud in Miami in 1999
and sentenced to 845 years in prison, who had sought refuge from this inhumane sentence in Austria?

Is the Council aware that the Austrian Minister of Justice handed over Mr Weiss into American custody
before Mr Weiss’s appeal against deportation had completed the appropriate procedures and despite an
injunction from the Administrative Court forbidding his extradition?

Is the Council aware that the European Court of Human Rights had indicated that interim measures should
be adopted pursuant to Rule 39 of its Rules of Procedure, and asked Austria to ensure that Mr Weiss was
not extradited pending its examination of the case?

Is the Council aware that the United Nations Human Rights Committee had also issued interim measures
asking Austria not to deport Mr Weiss while it examined the human rights issues under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?

Does the Council consider such conduct to be compatible with Austria’s commitment to the principles of
liberty, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law as set out in Article 6 of
the EU Treaty?

C 92 E/150

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member of Parliament concern issues for which a Member State is
responsible. The Council has no competence in these matters.

(2003/C 92 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2302/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Continued dumping at sea of ship-generated waste and cargo residues as a result of minimum

surveillance and inadequate prosecution of offenders

Does the Commission recall that, in its answer to my Written Question E-2246/01 (1), it said that it
1.
was confident that, as from 2002, implementation of Directive 2000/59/EC (2) would lead to a sharp
increase in the quantities of ship-generated waste delivered to European port reception facilities and to a
sharp fall in the number of illegal discharges at sea?

2. What has been the impact on the implementation of this Directive of the fact that no more than a
small proportion of those responsible for illegal discharges are caught in the act, since most discharges are
carried out at night and, by the time an oil slick becomes visible, the ship involved is already over the
horizon, the result of this being that, as far the Dutch part of the continental shelf in the North Sea is
concerned, it was possible to establish who was responsible for such slicks only five times in four years?

Do most of the ships involved come from Russia and other third countries whose captains are
3.
reluctant to deliver waste because they continue to regard the dumping and discharge of waste at sea as a
natural, cheap and innocuous custom?

4.
Can the Commission confirm that, out of the 50 000 ships which berth in Dutch ports every year,
only 400 are checked by the Netherlands coastguard and that only 7 of that number are fined, although,
on the Dutch part of the continental shelf, some 400-500 ships discharge oil, ropes, timber, nets, plastic,
batteries and, sometimes, even equipment such as photocopiers, with the result that not only are the
seabed and the shore polluted but plastic and toxic substances also enter the food chain of birds and fish?

5.
Can the Commission also confirm that the Netherlands carries out fewer checks than other EU
Member States on the dumping of ship-generated waste and cargo residues at sea and also prosecutes
fewer offenders, both because current national law does not provide for the levying of fines on foreign
ship’s captains for failure to complete their oil record books accurately and because there is just one officer
of the law who is responsible for prosecution? What is the reason for this disparity compared with other
Member States, and how can it brought to an end?

6. What supplementary measures for surveillance, legalisation and case-law from the individual Member
States does the Commission feel is required in order to improve the collection of ship-generated waste so
that the objectives referred to previously may actually be attained?

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 86.
(2) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 81.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2002)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member about operational ship-source pollution
in Community waters. The Commission has considered that measures, in addition to the international
ones, are needed in order to stop the discharges of oil and other substances at sea. For this reason, it made