WRITTEN QUESTION E-2529/02 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council. A further tragedy marked by the death of thirteen immigrants in the Straits of Gibraltar.
Date: 2002-09-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU migration policy, Morocco, Spain, death, illegal migration

C 92 E/180

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

(2003/C 92 E/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2523/02

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(11 September 2002)

Subject: Agriculture

Who are the 10 biggest recipients of EU agricultural subsidies in each of the 15 Member States and what
percentage of total agricultural support (in % and actual amounts in euro) was paid to those recipients in
2000 and 2001?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2002)

The Commission would refer
Mr Poignant (1).

(1) See page 123.

the Honourable Member

to its answer

to written E-1949/02 by

(2003/C 92 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2529/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(11 September 2002)

Subject: A further tragedy marked by the death of thirteen immigrants in the Straits of Gibraltar

On 1 August the bodies of thirteen African immigrants, men and women from the Kingdom of Morocco,
were washed up at Tarifa, on the coast of the Straits of Gibraltar, in Spanish and European Union territory,
in a repetition of the kind of tragedy which has already claimed the lives of thousands of people over the
last few years. What steps is the Council taking vis-à-vis Spain and the Kingdom of Morocco to try to
create the conditions needed to ensure that such appalling events do not happen again?

Reply

(19 December 2002)

1.
The Council shares the view of the Honourable Member regarding the need to adopt measures to
prevent any future recurrence of tragic events such as the one he mentions. It should be pointed out that
immigration and more effective and appropriate means to prevent it has been
the problem of illegal
included by recent Presidencies among the priority issues confronting the Union.

2.
The fight against illegal immigration was given great prominence in the conclusions of the Seville
European Council held on 21 and 22 June 2002. These conclusions outlined the courses of action to be
taken to ensure that effective measures were taken at Union level to prevent and limit the problem.

Attention should also be drawn to the fact that substantial impetus was given to this question by the
Spanish Presidency, even before the Seville European Council, in particular through the adoption of two
programmatic instruments which not only identified a number of measures to be carried out but also
defined the framework within which future action should occur and expand. These instruments are the
Action Plan to combat illegal
immigration and trafficking in human beings in the European Union
(adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 28 February 2002) and the Action Plan for the
management of the external borders of the Member States of the European Union (adopted by the Justice
and Home Affairs Council on 13 June 2002).

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/181

In addition, with regard to the fight against illegal immigration by sea, following the adoption of the
3.
Action Plan to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings in the European Union, the
Council also tackled this more specific question and adopted relevant conclusions at its meeting on 25 and
26 April 2002. In response to the invitation contained in the conclusions, the Commission is in the
process of examining, at technical meetings with representatives of the Member States, what measures
would be most appropriate and effective for consideration and implementation in this field at Union level.

4.
In the light of the Seville conclusions, the new Danish Presidency has given priority in its work
programme to the issue of combating illegal immigration, so as to be able to adopt and implement the
actions and measures on which the conclusions laid emphasis.

5.
Finally, with regard more specifically to the case of Morocco, it should be noted that, on the basis of
the mandate granted to it by the Council in 2000, the Commission submitted to the Moroccan authorities
that same year a draft readmission agreement. After a series of informal contacts between the Commission
and the Moroccan authorities, formal negotiations should begin in the next few months.

(2003/C 92 E/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2535/02

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 September 2002)

Subject: Ijzeren Rijn

1.

Can the Commission provide an overview of the situation with regard to the Ijzeren Rijn project?

In the Commission’s opinion, have all

2.
(environmental impact assessment) and the habitats and wild birds directives been eliminated?

the objections and obstacles with regard to the EIA

Is the Commission aware of the conclusions of Van Den Biesen Advocaten of 22 May 2002, and

3.
what view does it take of them?

The conclusions of Van Den Biesen Advocaten include the following passage: ‘On the basis of the above,
the general conclusion must be that the current procedural preparations for the reopening of the Ijzeren
Rijn line contravene the relevant European law. At the same time, bearing in mind European law and the
Berne Convention, it is highly questionable whether the Ijzeren Rijn line could ever be reopened while
complying with the law referred to here. The old treaties of 1839 and 1873 are insufficient to support
Belgium’s position and at all events do not override the existence, let alone the sense, the significance and
the binding character, of current European law.’

4. What action will the Commission take?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2002)

The ‘IJzeren Rijn’ (Iron Rhine) railway links the port of Antwerp and the German Ruhr area and is based
on a right of way through the Dutch canton of Sittard which is guaranteed by the Dutch-Belgian
separation Treaty of 1839 and subsequent Treaties of 1842 and 1873. Rail traffic existed on this route
between 1879 and 1994.

The issue of the re-opening of the Iron Rhine has been the subject of several parliamentary questions, as
well as of a complaint procedure against the Netherlands and two complaint procedures against Germany,
because of possible infringements in relation to the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (Council
Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment (1)) and the Nature Protection Directives: Council Directive 79/409/EEC of
2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) (Birds directive) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3) (Habitats directive).