WRITTEN QUESTION E-2381/02 by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Council. Treatment of asylum-seekers in the EU.
Date: 2002-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, admission of aliens, migrant, population statistics, right to vote, social-security benefit, statistical method

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/161

(2003/C 92 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2379/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Death penalty

Could the Commission provide details of any representations which the EU has made, or which it plans to
make, to the US Administration regarding the death penalty?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Representations made by the Union to the United States on the death penalty have taken several forms.
The last general demarche on the issue was undertaken in February 2000 when the Union called upon the
United States to establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view to its complete
elimination. The Union urged the United States to withdraw its reservation on Article 6 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), concerning the prohibition on imposing the death penalty
on minors. Furthermore, the Union called upon the United States to respect the strict conditions under
which the death penalty may be used, which are set forth in several international instruments. The Union
has also demonstrated its commitment to working for the abolition of the death penalty in the United
States through its involvement in individual cases. This has included the submission of amicus curiae briefs
to the United States Supreme Court and letters to Governors and Boards of Pardons and Paroles
considering death penalty cases.

A full list of recent representations made by the Union to the United States regarding specific cases where
the death penalty has been invoked can be found at the website of the Commission’s Delegation in
Washington (1)

The Union also continues to raises the issue of the death penalty on a regular basis during bilateral
contacts with the United States Administration under the New Transatlantic Agenda, and in the context of
its twice-yearly troika meetings with the United States on human rights issues.

(1) http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/DeathPenalty/deathpenhome.htm#ActiononUSDeathRowCases.

(2003/C 92 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2381/02

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Council

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Treatment of asylum-seekers in the EU

How does each Member State count the number of migrants (refugees, asylum-seekers, etc.) seeking

1.
admission (i.e. do they include all family members in their calculations or just heads of families)?

2. What State benefits are these migrants entitled to in each of the Member States of the EU?

3.

At what stage are migrants entitled to vote in each of the Member States of the European Union?

C 92 E/162

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Reply

(19 December 2002)

Some Member States provide that an application for asylum may be made by an applicant on behalf
1.
of his dependants, including minors. In other Member States, each adult person has the right to make a
separate application for asylum on his own behalf.

This situation is reflected in the statistics prepared by Member States. Those which allow heads of families
to make applications on behalf of their dependants normally use weighted formulas.

It should also be noted that, in its amended proposal for a Directive on minimum standards on procedures
in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (1), the Commission envisages certain
guarantees for cases in which Member States accept applications made by an applicant on behalf of his
dependants.

2.
In relation to the benefits to which asylum applicants are entitled, at its meeting on 25 April 2002
the Council defined a general approach to the proposal for a Directive laying down minimum standards
for the reception of applicants for asylum in the Member States. The Council instructed its subordinate
bodies to examine the opinion of
the European Parliament and to ensure the legal and linguistic
finalisation of the text with a view to its formal adoption at a forthcoming meeting.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the right of citizens of third countries to

3.
vote in Member States is governed by national laws.

(1) COM(2002) 326 final.

(2003/C 92 E/215)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2385/02

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Council

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Echelon interception system

As the Council is undoubtedly aware, in 1998 the European Parliament instructed STOA and a temporary
committee of inquiry to investigate the Echelon interception system. The committee published its report in
July 2001.

Although there is no formal proof, in the light of the evidence and the consistent pattern of statements
from American sources in particular, the existence of a global system of this kind, with the participation of
‘the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, under the UKUSA, agreement
is no longer in doubt’. The same applies to the use of Echelon, namely the fact that the system is indeed
used ‘to intercept … private and commercial communications and not military communications’.

Although the committee’s work did not produce any evidence to show that the global interception system
was used to distort the conditions of competition, the report does point out that, according to information
‘5 % of intelligence gathered via non-open sources is used as economic
gathered in the United States,
intelligence … this intelligence surveillance could enable US industry to earn up to USD 7 billion in
contracts’.

In the lights of these facts, will the Council:

(cid:1) take measures to make communications secure and detect any threat of interception?

(cid:1) call on EU partners gradually to draw up European rules on information exchange between

information services?