WRITTEN QUESTION E-2351/02 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. European immigration policy.
Date: 2002-07-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Albania, Algeria, China, EU migration policy, France, Hong Kong, Macao, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Sri Lanka, Türkiye, Ukraine, illegal migration, migration control, migration policy, negotiation of an agreement (EU), removal

C 137 E/74

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

12.6.2003

putting in place measures to develop alternative sources of income and economic activity for tobacco
workers and growers. The Commission has made this clear in its communication to the Gothenburg
European Council (15/16 June 2001), and in its recent proposals for a modification of the tobacco regime,
where a reference to phasing out the subsidies was however not supported by the Parliament and the
Council. Therefore, in the FCTC context, the Commission (cid:1) speaking on behalf of the Community (cid:1) was
only able to refer to the ongoing discussions on modifications to the tobacco regime, and to show the
Commission’s readiness to move forward in this area.

Tobacco sales through vending machines and tobacco sales to minors are issues falling under Member
States’ competence, and in the FCTC context they are therefore dealt with by the Presidency. However,
these issues are addressed in a proposal for a Council Recommendation on the prevention of smoking and
on initiatives to improve tobacco control, which the Commission has recently adopted (1).
In the
preparations for the next round of FCTC negotiations, the Commission will defend the recommendations
contained in this proposal.

As far as resources for developing countries are concerned, in the FCTC negotiations the Community has
recognised the importance of technical and financial assistance to support smoking control. The increasing
use of tobacco, particularly in a number of middle-income developing countries, poses a serious long-term
threat to public health. The Community has expressed a preference, in this context, for making optimum
use of existing instruments, rather than creating new mechanisms. This issue will also be addressed in a
high level round table on tobacco control and development policy which the Commission will organise in
the coming months. The results of this event will then feed into the Community position for the final
phase of the FCTC negotiations. With respect to the reference made to the political situation in Zimbabwe,
following the Council Decision on 18 February 2002 (2), the Commission has suspended support for all
projects except those directly supporting the population. In current circumstances, the Commission does
not foresee any support for tobacco control in Zimbabwe.

Finally, the Commission would like to point out that Members of the Parliament have in fact been included
as observers in the Community’s delegation in the previous four FCTC negotiating rounds. During the two
last rounds (October 2001 and March 2002), the Parliament was represented by the Honourable Member
Mrs M. Malliori. At the next round, (14-25 October 2002), the Parliament will be represented by the
Honourable Member J. Maaten. Members of the Parliament have also been invited to preparatory and
debriefing meetings which the Commission has organised before and after negotiating rounds.

(1) COM(2002) 303 final.
(2) Decision 2002/148/EC.

(2003/C 137 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2351/02

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 July 2002)

Subject: European immigration policy

On Wednesday, 10 July, the French Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, unveiled a ‘back to the border’
scheme for illegal immigrants, grouped by country.

Sarkozy argued that his country needs to rectify its strategy on immigration, claiming that there is
something wrong when requests for asylum have fallen in seven EU countries while continuing to rise in
France.

France has adopted this position just when the EU is drawing up a proposal to harmonise the repatriation
of illegal immigrants. What obstacles, if any, might this European legislation place in the way of the newly
announced French scheme? What does the EU harmonisation currently in hand actually consist of?

Given this type of situation, which may arise in other Member States, it is clearly necessary to have
readmission agreements with the immigrants’ countries of origin, so as to guarantee that in situations such
as the one referred to above, those countries will actually acknowledge their own nationals. Independent of

12.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137 E/75

whatever bilateral agreements the Member States may have been able to negotiate with the immigrants’
countries of origin, can the Commission tell me how far it has got in the negotiations it has been
mandated to begin on readmission agreements? What are the countries for which the Commission intends
to seek a new negotiating mandate from the Council?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

The Commission has no information concerning a French ‘back to the border’ scheme for illegal
immigrants, grouped by country. It is therefore not in a position to comment on any such scheme’s
compatibility with existing Union laws and policies.

There is as yet no overall Union policy on return and readmission, although the Commission has
published a Green Paper (1) on a Community Return Policy and has advanced its work on re-admission
agreements as described below. This is due to the fact that it is only since the entry into force of the Treaty
of Amsterdam on 1 May 1999 that the Community has had powers in this field (Article 63(3)(b) of the EC
Treaty).

When debating the effects of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam on the Union’s future policy
in this field, at its meeting on 27 and 28 May 1999, the Council concluded that Community readmission
agreements would constitute a valuable instrument for an active return policy and that, in suitable cases,
the Council would authorise the Commission to conduct negotiations with third countries on such
agreements. These
the Tampere European Council of
15/16 October 1999 when the Union’s Heads of State or Government explicitly confirmed that the
Amsterdam Treaty conferred powers on the Community in the field of readmission. The European Council
invited the Council to conclude readmission agreements with relevant third-countries or groups of third-
it shares this approach, most recently in its
countries. The Commission has repeatedly stated that
Communication on a Common Policy on Illegal Immigration (2) and in the Green Paper on a Community
Return Policy mentioned above.

conclusions were broadly backed by

to negotiate Community readmission
The Commission has so far been authorised by the Council
the Chinese Special
agreements with Russia, Morocco, Pakistan, Sri Lanka (in September 2000),
in
Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macao (in April 2001) and Ukraine (in June 2002)
the Commission has been able to complete
accordance with Article 300 of the EC Treaty. So far,
negotiations successfully with Hong Kong and Sri Lanka with whom final
texts were initialled on
22 November 2001 and 30 May 2002 respectively. The Council should soon authorise the Commission to
sign the Hong Kong Agreement which is now likely to become the first ever readmission agreement to be
concluded by the Community.

Following the Laeken European Council of 14/15 December 2001, which emphazised the need for the
conclusion of Community readmission agreements with further relevant third-countries, at its meeting on
25 April 2002, the Council, identified Albania, Algeria, China and Turkey as new priorities. This was
confirmed by the Seville European Council of 21/22 June 2002 which, in paragraph 30 of its conclusions,
explicitly called for the speeding up of
the conclusion of readmission agreements currently being
negotiated and the approval of new negotiating mandates for further third countries. As a consequence,
the Commission will shortly submit to the Council draft mandates for negotiations with Albania, Algeria,
China and Turkey.

(1) COM(2002) 175 final.
(2) COM(2001) 672 final.

(2003/C 137 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2352/02

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: British drugs policy and how it relates to European policy

(31 July 2002)

The UK Home Secretary, David Blunkett, has confirmed that in the wake of recommendations made by the
UK Parliament from July 2003 cannabis will be deemed a type C drug in the UK, alongside steroids and
antidepressants.