WRITTEN QUESTION E-3309/02 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Acts of aggression directed at Community nationals at a Turkish sports stadium.
Date: 2002-11-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, Schengen Information System, Türkiye, border control, hooliganism, police cooperation, public order

C 192 E/106

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

In this respect, this law could be considered as a measure having an effect equivalent to quantitative
restrictions on imports, prohibited by Article 28 of the EC Treaty. Furthermore, the ban appears to be
disproportionate as to the aims pursued and does not seem to be justified under the grounds provided by
Article 30 of the EC Treaty or the mandatory requirements accepted by the Court of Justice. Therefore, a
letter of formal notice in accordance with Article 226 of the EC Treaty has been sent to the Greek
authorities.

Following the questions of the Honourable MEPs, the Commission’ services are ready to examine elements
of the law falling under Article 43 of the EC Treaty on freedom of establishment and under Article 49 on
the free provision of services, as well as with regard to the obligations of Member States under Directive
98/34/EC (1).

(1) Directive 98/34 as modified by Directive 98/48 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a
procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on
Information Society services (cid:1) OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18.

(2003/C 192 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3309/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 November 2002)

Subject: Acts of aggression directed at Community nationals at a Turkish sports stadium

A few days ago, an official international football match was held between the Greek Panathinaikos and
Turkish Fenerbahce teams. Before, during and after the match the 1500 Greek Panathinaikos fans were
attacked and many of them injured by thousands of Turkish supporters. The situation was further
aggravated by the presence in the stand of a giant hoarding bearing anti-Greek slogans erected by means
of a special mechanism situated directly opposite the Panathinaikos supporters’ seats, which had clearly
required a concerted effort to bring it into the stadium and set it up, leading to the justified conclusion
that this was not simply a case of isolated actions by Turkish supporters.

Moreover, serious episodes occurred before, during and after the Fenerbahce-Galatasaray fixture on
6 November 2002, with Turkish television continuously broadcasting scenes of Fenerbahce supporters
wielding knives (!) in the vicinity of the football field and trainers’ benches. Turkish supporters were also
behind serious incidents occurring two years ago involving the stabbing of British Arsenal fans at a match
against the Galatasaray team in Istanbul.

As a member of the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport,
I should like to know the Commission’s view of the precedented attacks on the Panathinaikos fans,
European Community nationals who were visiting Turkey for an international sports fixture. What
provisions are contained in the Schengen Agreement regarding supporters with a record of provoking such
incidents in the past or where there are grounds for suspecting that they wish to enter Community
territory in order to provoke further violent clashes?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2003)

The Commission condemns all
involved or the place where the incidents occur.

forms of hooliganism,

irrespective of the nationality of the persons

To improve co-operation between law enforcement authorities of the Member States, the Council adopted
on 25 April 2002 on the basis of Art 30 of the Treaty on the European Union a decision concerning
security in connection with football matches with an international dimension (1), that aims at improving
the information exchange between the authorities involved in guaranteeing that these sportive events do
not get distracted by trouble-makers.

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/107

An important tool for improving operational co-operation is the Handbook with recommendations for
international police cooperation and measures to prevent and control violence and disturbances in
connection with football matches with an international dimension, in which at least one Member State is
involved. The handbook was made available to police forces by means of the Council Resolution of
6 December 2001 (2). It calls for intensified co-operation with third country authorities and other persons
responsible for security of football matches.

The Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (the Schengen Convention) does not contain
specific provisions on hooliganism. According to the general rules on entry on the territory of Member
States that are member of the free travel area, a Member State should in principle refuse the entry of third
country nationals who are reported in the Schengen Information System (SIS) to be refused entry under
art. 96 of
judicial authorities of a Member State launch an
international request for extradition against a person who has been identified as a perpetrator of criminal
acts, the relevant data concerning this person are introduced on their request in the SIS under article 95 of
the Schengen Convention.

the Schengen Convention. Besides,

if

(1) Decision 2002/348/JHA (cid:1) OJ L 121, 8.5.2002.
(2) OJ C 22, 24.1.2002.

(2003/C 192 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3315/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Subject: Borrowing forecasts

Further to the Commission’s answer on 4 November to parliamentary questions E-2865/02 through
1.
E-2868/02 (1), will
the Commission now give the forecast made in each stability and convergence
programme for each Member State for real GDP, inflation and the budget balance, and compare each of
those projections with the out-turn?

Does the Commission find any systematic differences in the forecasting performance for different

2.
Member States, and if so why?

3. What conclusions does the Commission draw?

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 47.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Stability and Convergence Programmes (SCP) are submitted by Member States at the turn of the year. After
the adoption of the Code of Conduct in 2001, SCP are submitted right after the finalisation of the
the
Commission’s Autumn forecasting exercise, which allows for a sound basis for assessment of
programmes. Moreover, the information contained in the programmes is now fairly homogeneous and
includes data on macroeconomic forecasts (gross domestic product (GDP) and inflation projections) and
budgetary developments. While making an assessment of
the Commission
provides also an appraisal of the previous year’s programme in the light of developments during the year.
For the next round of SCP it is still too early to have knowledge of what will be submitted to the
Commission for an assessment. Furthermore, any comparison between the forecasts on macroeconomic
variables or budgetary targets contained in the programmes with actual out-turns can be made only at a
later date. For data referring to 2003, a comparison can be made once statistical data become official once
the year comes to a close.

the current programme,

In order to confirm if there exist systematic differences between the forecasted variables within the context
of the SCP and actual results, an ex post study should be made. Such a comprehensive study for all
Member States has not yet been prepared by the Commission.