WRITTEN QUESTION E-2385/02 by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Council. Echelon interception system.
Date: 2002-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: espionage, exchange of information, information system, protection of communications, protection of privacy, restriction on competition, satellite communications

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?

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/163

Reply

(19 December 2002)

1.

As concerns the protection of telecommunication traffic data, the Council recalls the:

(cid:1) Council Resolution of 17 January 1995 on the lawful interception of telecommunications (1),

(cid:1) Convention of 29 May 2000 on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the Member States of

the European Union (2) and the Protocol of 16 October 2001 to this Convention (3), and

(cid:1) European Parliament and Council directive 2002/58/EC of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of

personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (4).

If

2.
Commission or a Member State.

further provisions are necessary,

the Council will examine any initiative coming from the

(1) OJ C 329, 4.11.1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 197, 12.7.2000, p. 1.
(3) OJ C 326, 21.11.2001, p. 2.
(4) OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37.

(2003/C 92 E/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2388/02

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Desecration of Jewish graves at the Rome Verano cemetery

On 18 July 2002, a date corresponding to the Fast of Ab 9, a day of mourning in the Jewish calendar,
more than forty Jewish graves were desecrated at the Verano cemetery in Rome. The entire city was
appalled at this despicable act, the first anti-Semitic attack of such alarming seriousness to have occurred in
Rome in many years.

What action will the Commission take in the wake of the barbaric desecration of the Verano cemetery?

How will it prevent and respond to the long series of anti-Semitic outrages of the kind perpetrated, before
the Rome incident, in Strasbourg, Marseilles, and Brussels?

How will it combat the crazed subculture which, by fomenting hatred of the Jews while demonising the
state of Israel, leads to shameful episodes of the sort that occurred in Rome?

Is in a position to ascertain whether anti-Semitic organisations are pursuing a calculated strategy and
perhaps cooperating on an international basis?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 September 2002)

The Commission resolutely condemns all forms of racist, xenophobic or anti-Semitic violence, which
constitute an intolerable violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms on which the Union is
founded and which are shared by all Member States. It reiterates its commitment to combating racist,
xenophobic and anti-Semitic phenomena by all the means for which the Treaty makes provision.

In this connection, the Commission would point out that it is not empowered to administer justice in the
Member States and that it is the responsibility of the Member States’ judicial authorities to take criminal
justice measures with respect to the events referred to by the Honourable Member, should they see fit to
do so.