WRITTEN QUESTION E-3257/02 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. European border police force.
Date: 2002-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU relations, admission of aliens, border control, common foreign and security policy, external border of the EU, illegal migration, migration control, paramilitary force, removal, third country

C 161 E/76

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

The damage caused by the earthquake will inevitably impact on the economy of the entire region. Many
families have found themselves homeless and having to disburse huge sums, while large numbers of
family-run firms and various facilities have been destroyed and it will take many years to restore the
villages and the activities carried on there to normal.

Considering that a state of calamity and emergency has been declared in the region, and in view of the
serious economic repercussions confronting the local population, does the Commission feel that the
circumstances dictate that Molise should be granted the benefits applicable to an Objective One region?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

The Honourable Member is informed that Molise, classed as an Objective 1 region (transitional support)
for the 2000-2006 period, already enjoys the same opportunities as the other Objective 1 regions. An
Operational Programme for EUR 605 million (Community contribution EUR 115 million)
is helping
promote sustainable economic development. One of its measures is concerned with ‘restoring agricultural
production potential affected by natural disasters and putting suitable means of prevention in place’.

The provisions on aid from the EAGGF also include the possibility in the rural development framework of
a measure for ‘renovation and development of villages and rural heritage conservation’.

The Commission is prepared to examine any proposal from the regional and national authorities for
adjustment of the Operational Programme in progress in order to concentrate available resources on
existing or new measures that will help overcome certain problems following the earthquake.

The Commission also refers the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Questions E-3258/02 by
Mrs Muscardini and Mrs Poli and E-3434/02 by Mrs Angelilli (1), which indicates the various Community-
level measures that can be brought into play when natural disasters occur and the conditions under which
they apply.

(1) See page 78.

(2003/C 161 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3257/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: European border police force

With reference to the topics discussed by the European Council in Seville concerning the fight against
illegal immigration, asylum and the management of external borders, can the Commission say:

1. What measures have been taken to create a European border police force?

2. Have priorities been defined for readmission agreements,

in particular with those countries from

which most illegal immigrants come?

3. Have the resources available at Community level been adjusted to cover repatriation, management of

external borders and asylum and migration projects in non-member countries?

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/77

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 January 2003)

The idea of a European border police force or a European Corps of Border Guards has been raised
1.
and supported by a couple of Member States and by the Commission. The issue has been discussed at
Council level but so far no political decision has been taken to create such a European force.

The ‘Plan for the management of the external borders of the Member States of the European Union’ that
was adopted by the Council on 13 June 2002 (1) stresses the dynamic dimension and step-by-step policy
prevailing in these matters. So does the Communication from the Commission (2). Paragraph 47 to 51 of
the Communication outline basic principles that should structure a real European Corps of Border Guards
whose agents would be empowered to perform tasks of border checks and border surveillance provided for
by Article 62 of the EC Treaty. However, the Communication underlines that many practical and legal
difficulties would have to be overcome to achieve this.

Most of the priorities identified in conclusion No 32 of the European Council of Seville (21 and 22 June
2002) will very likely enlighten by concrete experiences the main legal shortcomings and operational gaps
to be bridged on the way to an eventual European force. Joint operations are currently under preparation
at the external borders, where national forces sent by several Member States will work in common for
defined and limited periods. In most of the cases, Member States hosting or co-ordinating these joint
actions have associated the Commission, which are expected to provide any relevant advise and expertise
concerning European institutions and Community legislation concerned by the projects.

At its meeting in Luxembourg on 25 April 2002, the Council (Justice and Home Affairs) adopted
2.
conclusions defining criteria for the identification of
third-countries with which new readmission
agreements need to be concluded. These criteria have been elaborated following the explicit requests
contained in the conclusions of the Laeken European Council (14 and 15 December 2001) and in the
Union action plan to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings of 28 February 2002.

In its conclusions of 25 April 2002, the Council approved the following six identification criteria:

(cid:1) the migration pressure exerted from or via the third country on the Union, together with the number

of persons awaiting return;

(cid:1) the third-country’s geographical position in relation to the Union;

(cid:1) the third-country is not a candidate country with which the Union is negotiating about accession;

(cid:1) considerations of geographical balance and regional coherence;

(cid:1) the fact that there is an existing Union association or cooperation agreement containing a readmission

clause;

(cid:1) the added value of a Community agreement compared to individual Member States agreements.

Since adoption of the above criteria in April 2002, the Council has authorised the Commission to
negotiate Community readmission agreements with Ukraine, Albania, Algeria, China and Turkey. Prior to
that date, the Commission already received negotiating mandates for Community readmission agreements
with Morocco, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Russia (September 2000) as well as Hong Kong and Macao (April
2001).

3.
On 3 December 2002, the Commission adopted a Communication to the Council and the Parliament
on the integration of migration issues in the Union’s relations with third-countries (3). This Communication
contains a detailed report on the effectiveness of financial resources at Community level for repatriation of
immigrants and rejected asylum seekers,
for management of external borders and for asylum and
migration projects in third countries. The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member of to
this report.

(1) OJ L 161, 19.6.2002.
(2)

‘Towards integrated management of
COM(2002) 233 final.
(3) COM(2002) 703 final.

the external borders of

the Member States of

the European Union’,