WRITTEN QUESTION E-2399/02 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission. Legislation banning the sale of air weapons to young people under 18.
Date: 2002-08-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: arms control, competence of the Member States, personal weapon, sale, young person

C 92 E/164

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

In its conclusions of 25 and 26 April 2002 on combating racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia, the
Council reiterated, in particular, that there is a need to approximate national law on combating racism and
xenophobia, while at the same time guaranteeing respect for the constitutional rules and principles relating
to human rights and fundamental freedoms, and stressed the importance of the proposal for a Framework
Decision on combating racism and xenophobia which the Commission presented in November 2001 (1)
and which is currently under discussion within the Council.

Moreover, the Commission has already taken significant action to combat racism and xenophobia and to
increase public awareness of these issues in areas including employment, immigration and asylum policy,
support for refugees, education, research and external relations.

Finally, the European Monitoring Centre for Racism en Xenophobia also has an important role to play in
consciousness-raising and disseminating best practice from the Member States.

(1) COM(2001) 664 final, OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.

(2003/C 92 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2391/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: European funding for Belgium and the city of Antwerp

(2 August 2002)

The Commission subsidises through its various funds many laudable projects in the EU Member States.
Can it state how many EU subsidies Belgium receives and what the exact amounts of subsidy are for the
cities of Ghent and Antwerp?

Can the Commission state the precise amount of subsidies paid in 1999, 2000 and 2001 to Belgium?

Can the Commission state the precise amount of subsidies paid in 1999, 2000 and 2001 to projects in the
city of Antwerp?

Can the Commission state the precise amount of subsidies paid in 1999, 2000 and 2001 to projects in the
city of Ghent?

What type of subsidies have been granted in Antwerp?

What type of subsidies have been granted in Ghent?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat.

(2003/C 92 E/218)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2399/02

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(5 August 2002)

Subject: Legislation banning the sale of air weapons to young people under 18

In the interests of public health and safety will the Commission consider bringing forward legislation
banning the placing on the market of air guns and air pistols for sale to young persons under the age of
18 years? If not, why not?

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/165

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (1)
does not contain any provision relating to air guns and air pistols.

However, this does not prevent Member States from maintaining or adopting, in their national legislation,
restrictive provisions on the conditions for the acquisition of such guns and pistols.

Nor has the consultation of the Member States and those involved in the process of reviewing Directive
91/477/EEC revealed any need for harmonisation at Community level in relation to the point raised by the
honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991.

(2003/C 92 E/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2408/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(7 August 2002)

Subject: Conditions attached to the application of the European Arrest Warrant

Under the proposals for the European Arrest Warrant currently before the Council, will the requesting
state be required to restrict prosecution of an extradited person to those offences that are specified in the
warrant? Would it be a violation of the arrest warrant for the requesting Member State to initiate a
prosecution for an offence alleged to have been committed before the application for extradition was made
and which was not specified on the warrant without first offering the extradited person the opportunity to
leave the jurisdiction of the requesting state?

Reply

(16-19 December 2002)

The answer to the question whether the issuing State is required to restrict prosecution of a person
surrendered under the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant to those offences that are
specified in the arrest warrant can be found in Article 27 of the said Framework Decision, which is
concerned with possible prosecution for other offences.

The main rule laid down in Article 27 corresponds to the well-known principle of specialty in extradition
law, under which an extradited person may not be prosecuted by the requesting state for any other offence
committed prior to extradition/surrender than those for which extradition was granted (see Article 27(2)).
As has traditionally been done in most extradition treaties, the Framework Decision on the European arrest
warrant defines the practical conditions under which this principle is to be applied. This is done by
describing the circumstances within which the specialty principle does not apply.

Article 27(3) of the Framework Decision states that this principle does not apply in the following cases:

(a) when the person having had an opportunity to leave the territory of the Member State to which he or
she has been surrendered has not done so within 45 days of his or her final discharge, or has returned
to that territory after leaving it;

(b)

the offence is not punishable by a custodial sentence or detention order;