WRITTEN QUESTION E-3168/02 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Carrier liability.
Date: 2002-11-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU migration policy, Schengen Agreement, border control, carrier, drafting of EU law, illegal migration, liability, transport policy

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/43

ambition going beyond the simple fight against illegal immigration: ‘(…) The control and surveillance of
borders contribute to managing flows of persons entering and leaving that area and helps protect our
citizens from threats to their security. Besides, they contribute a fundamental element in the fight against
illegal immigration’.

As one of the aspects of integrated management of external borders likely to contribute to the fight against
terrorism, the Commission communication recommends the adoption of an ‘common integrated risk
evaluation’ based on a multidisciplinary definition of indicators considered as relevant to external borders.
To that end, the Commission has advocated synergy between Europol and the police cooperation bodies.
The Plan for the management of external borders adopted by the Council has made it a common objective,
while the Seville European Council (21/22 June 2002) called for the preparation, before June 2002, of a
‘common risk analysis model, in order to achieve common integrated risk assessment’. The risk of terrorist
infiltration will certainly be included among the indicators of common risk assessment affecting external
borders.

The Commission also suggests that a procedure or code of conduct be developed in order to enable an
exchange and permanent processing of information and intelligence between the services responsible for
the control and surveillance of external borders and the security services of the Member States operating
within their borders. Here, the Communication states that ‘the intelligence services of a Member State
should be able to supply all border guard services and consulates of the Member States without delay with
sufficiently relevant and precise information to enable them to exercise targeted surveillance of certain
types of individuals, of objects, of geographical origins or modes of transport for a given period’. This
scenario appears closely akin to the situation described by the Honourable Member.

In the longer term, the Commission communication suggests using technological innovations and gives as
an example the Galileo system with a view to improving the surveillance of coastlines by satellite.

(1) OJ L 161, 19.6.2002.

(2003/C 242 E/044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3168/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 November 2002)

Subject: Carrier liability

in the verbatim of the debate on a draft Directive on carriers’

Responding to a series of questions on carriers’ liability raised by MEP Glyn Ford (E-1587/02 (cid:1) E-1594/
02 (1)), Commissioner Vitorino affirmed on 9 July 2002 that the European Commission ‘has never called
for fully harmonised carriers’ liability legislation applied to all means of transport’, as suggested in one of
these questions. However,
liability put
forward by the French presidency on 13 March 2001, Commissioner Vitorino said, ‘The draft (Directive)
we are considering today is only a first step. In the long run it will be necessary to go further and look
coherently at all means of transport, including freight transport. Therefore, the Commission, for its part,
will assume its responsibility on this issue and we will try to prepare the ground in close cooperation with
all interested parties for a more harmonised European approach. We think that we will be able to bring
along a proposal covering all means of transport and build upon close cooperation with humanitarian
organisations, with the carriers themselves, and, of course, with law enforcement agencies’.

If this does not mean that the European Commission was calling for ‘fully harmonised carriers’ liability
legislation applied to all means of transport’, can the European Commission explain exactly what was
meant in the afore-mentioned statement by Commissioner Vitorino?

The European Commission has been holding a series of round-table discussions by experts to look into the
liability legislation. Such discussions are normally held before a piece of
consequences of carriers’

C 242 E/44

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

legislation is put before Parliament for approval and not six months after the final approval of the
Directive in question. Can the Commission explain why such discussions were taking place after the
approval of the relevant Council Directive, particularly given that the legislative measure is new to several
Member States?

The afore-mentioned draft Directive was formally adopted on 27 June 2001 and two Member States,
namely Ireland and Sweden, which do not have a law on imposing hefty fines on carriers found, willingly
or unwillingly, transporting insufficiently documented passengers are now obliged to introduce one or be
referred to the European Court of Justice by the European Commission for failing to transpose an EU
Directive. Does it not appear to the European Commission that we are faced here with a democratic deficit
and that the due process of democratic procedures has not been respected? If this is not the view of the
European Commission, can it explain its position?

Although the points raised in the written questions by Mr Ford refer to the main legitimate and real
concerns caused by carriers’ liability legislation, the use of the future tense by the Commission in its replies
appears to suggest that they have not yet been discussed by the said round-table meetings of experts. Can
the Commission provide an exhaustive list of what has indeed been discussed so far?

(1) See page 2.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2002)

It needs to be recalled that the Commission has already given an exhaustive overview on the Commission
position and activities relating to carriers liability in its answers to a series of written questions (E-0488/02
to E-0493/02 (1) and E-1587/02 to E-1594/02 (2)) submitted by Mr Ford. The queries raised by the
Honourable Member in the present written question relate to a large extent to the same issues and
reference is therefore being made to the content of the above mentioned answers.

On the detailed points raised by the Honourable Member:

(cid:1) Being aware of the complexity of the issues involved, the Commission is indeed convinced that a
gradual development towards a more harmonised regime of carriers liability at European level is the
right way forward and it therefore welcomes the currently ongoing trilateral expert meetings on
carriers liability as an important fact finding exercise.

(cid:1) Council Directive 2001/51/EC of 28 June 2001 supplementing the provisions of Article 26 of the
Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 (3) was based on an initiative of
the French Republic (4) and not on a Commission proposal. The Commission is not in a position to
give information or to comment on preliminary consultations which may have been carried out by
the French Republic before submitting its initiative.

(cid:1) Council Directive 2001/51/EC was adopted according to the procedure foreseen in Article 67 of the
EC Treaty (inserted into the EC Treaty by the Amsterdam Treaty). The Commission does not consider
it appropriate to comment on an alleged ‘democratic deficit’ of a procedure foreseen in the EC Treaty
within the context of the present written question.

(cid:1) Article 7 of Directive 2001/51/EC obliges Member States to take the necessary measures to comply
with this Directive not later than 11 February 2003 and to inform the Commission thereof. Following
the expiry of this deadline, the Commission will be obliged under Article 211 of the EC Treaty to
ensure that the provisions of this Directive are correctly applied by Member States.

(cid:1) Four expert meetings (focusing on a legal overview, the humanitarian dimension, codes of conduct/
memoranda of understanding and technical information exchange) have been scheduled for 2002. The
last of these meetings will take place in December 2002.

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 45.
(2) See page 2.
(3) OJ L 187, 10.7.2001.
(4) OJ C 269, 20.9.2000.