WRITTEN QUESTION P-3218/02 by Marianne Eriksson (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Visa enabling Russian citizens to enter the EU.
Date: 2002-11-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Russia, Schengen Agreement, admission of aliens, foreign national, free movement of persons

C 222 E/52

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Medicinal products for human use, including vaccines, are closely monitored to allow timely evaluation of
new information relevant to the risks and benefits of these products, so that appropriate action may be
taken, when necessary, to protect public health. The conduct of pharmacovigilance rests on a number of
parties, i.e. the Member States, the Commission, the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
Products (EMEA) and the Marketing Authorisation Holders.

All relevant information about suspected adverse reactions caused by medicinal products for human use
occurring within or outside the Union will be taken into account in accordance with Articles 19-26 of
‘Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the
authorization and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a
European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (5)’ and Articles 101-109 of Directive 2001/83/
EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to
medicinal products for human use (6). The Commission submitted to Parliament and Council a proposal to
modify the above-mentioned Regulation and Directive in order to strengthen the safety of medicinal
products within the Community.

Nevertheless, there is still a lack of scientific knowledge in many respects. For that reason the Commission
has funded, within the 5th Framework Program, more than 65 research projects related to vaccine
development and vaccination strategies.
it is
relevant to mention two projects: ‘European research programme for improved vaccine safety surveillance’,
designed to provide a scientific basis for improved vaccine safety surveillance and ‘European Sero-
Epidemiology Network 2’, aiming at co-ordinating and harmonising the serological surveillance of
immunity to a variety of vaccine preventable infections (measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis,
varicella zoster virus, hepatitis A and hepatitis B).

In particular regarding surveillance and adverse effects,

(1) Decision No 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 setting up a network for the

epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community.

(2) Commission Decision 2000/96/EC of 22 December 1999 on the communicable diseases to be progressively
covered by the Community network under Decision No 2119/98/EEC of the Parliament and of the Council (cid:1)
OJ L 28, 3.2.2000.

(3) Commission Decision 2002/253/EC of 19 March 2002 laying down case definitions for reporting communicable
diseases to the Community network under Decision No 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council (cid:1)
OJ L 86, 3.4.2002.

(4) 2000/57/EC: Commission Decision of 22 December 1999 on the early warning and response system for the
prevention and control of communicable diseases under Decision No 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the
Council (cid:1) OJ L 21, 26.1.2000.

(5) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorization
and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the
Evaluation of Medicinal Products (cid:1) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993.

(6) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.

(2003/C 222 E/056)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3218/02

by Marianne Eriksson (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(7 November 2002)

Subject: Visa enabling Russian citizens to enter the EU

In September this year I invited three women who work at a women’s crisis centre in Murmansk to
participate in a European Parliament conference on prostitution and trafficking in women, on
9/10 October 2002. When I spoke to Belgian diplomatic staff in Moscow and St Petersburg about the
possibility of obtaining visas for them, everyone I spoke to gave different answers, but it seemed clear that
the women would have to go to Moscow with my original invitation, and that even then they would not
be certain of obtaining a visa. I also spoke to the Swedish visa authorities about the possibiltiy of their
flying via Sweden, but was told that a visa for Sweden would not be sufficient for them to travel on to
Belgium (Schengen agreement), and that they would require a visa for each separate EU country. I think it

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/53

is remarkable that 500 000 people a year can be allowed in illegally for purposes of sexual exploitation but
that it is quite impossible to invite three people to talk about the same phenomenon.

Do I need to contact a trafficker in order to invite Russian citizens to the European Parliament? And why
does the Schengen agreement not apply to them?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that it is no part of its function to comment on
individual cases involving the processing of visa applications by Member States’ representations in third
countries.

Member States bound by the relevant provisions of the Schengen acquis decide case by case whether to
grant individual short-stay visas,
in accordance with the rules of the Schengen Convention and the
Common Consular Instructions. Under those rules, the representation responsible in the third country is
always that of the Member State in whose territory the main purpose of the visit is to be fulfilled. Persons
granted such a visa may move freely during its period of validity within the territories of all the Member
States which apply the Schengen Convention in full, unless it is a ‘visa with limited territorial validity’.

(2003/C 222 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3220/02

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2002)

Subject: Viability of the construction of a new airport at Corvera (Murcia, Spain)

Recent press reports state that the Spanish government intends to build the above new regional airport,
following the approval by the Interministerial Committee for Defence and Transport of a report favouring
its construction, which, it is claimed, will meet the alleged need for new facilities to handle large numbers
of tourists.

Is the Commission aware of these developments?

Does the Commission not consider this new scheme to be contrary to the recommendation made in the
white paper on European transport policy for 2010 (1) that the construction of new airports should be
suspended?

Does the Commission not consider that Spain’s airports already have excess capacity, and that this
circumstance casts doubt on the viability of any fresh projects?

(1) COM(2001) 370.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2002)

The Spanish authorities have not officially informed the Commission about their intentions with regard to
the construction of a new airport in the region of Murcia, and are under no obligation to do so.

On the basis of general
developments in this respect.

information publicly available,

the Commission is aware of

the recent

The Commission does not consider that the possibility of the project in question would go against the
policy advocated by the Commission in its ‘White Paper on European transport policy for 2010: time to
decide (1)’.