WRITTEN QUESTION E-3332/02 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission. Afghanistan.
Date: 2002-11-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Afghanistan, EU aid, UNHCR, cooperation policy, development aid, economic reconstruction, humanitarian aid, refugee, return migration

C 242 E/52

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

The Court of Justice has been asked for a preliminary ruling by Belgium’s Council of State in a similar case.
The request relates to the interpretation of Articles 17 and 18 of the EC Treaty in a dispute between a
Spanish national and the Belgian authorities over Belgian legislation on the registration of children’s
names. The case concerns a Spanish male national who is married to a Belgian female national (both are
resident in Belgium) and their children, who have dual nationality and to whom the lex fori, i.e. Belgian
law, is being applied in accordance with the rules of private international law.

In its observations to the Court of Justice, the Commission has argued that the principles of Community
law on citizenship of the Union and the free movement of persons, which are enshrined in particular in
Articles 12 and 17 of the EC Treaty, should be interpreted as precluding legislation that prevents an
administrative authority, when faced with an application to change a family name in the case of minor
children residing in the Member State of that authority and having the nationality of that State through
their mother and the nationality of another Member State through their father, from applying the legal
rules of that other Member State concerning the attribution of the family name on the grounds that in the
host Member State children normally take their father’s family name, where the application of that other
Member State’s legal rules cannot reasonably be considered as conflicting with the public interest in the
host Member State.

The Commission considers that any decision on what action to take in this matter should wait until the
Court of Justice has made its position known.

(2003/C 242 E/052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3332/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(26 November 2002)

Subject: Afghanistan

Would the Commission clarify how the proposal from Council to repatriate Afghan refugees currently
living in the EU would be funded? Is the Commission aware that there are concerns about legal and
humanitarian aspects of this proposal?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2003)

The Commission is strongly committed to the reconstruction and recovery of Afghanistan. Since
September 2001,
In 2002,
development assistance will be over EUR 205 million. In addition, the Commission will finance humani-
tarian support of about EUR 73 million.

it has been one of the largest contributors to the reconstruction effort.

The massive return of refugees is widely seen an indicator of the achievements of the leadership of the
Afghan Interim and Afghan Transitional Authority. Up to 2,5 million refugees are thought to have
returned from the region, including internally displaced persons returning to their place of origin. The
Commission is determined to support the sustainability of these returns both through its humanitarian aid,
and through its development assistance which is especially aimed at rural recovery, physical recon-
struction, human and social capital and finally, governance and security.

As requested by the European Council in Seville, the Council of Ministers adopted on 28 November 2002
a plan to support returns to Afghanistan. This plan seeks to establish methods to support those wishing to
return. Its principles are modelled on the existing tri-partite agreements brokered by United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and concluded between the Afghan authorities and the host-country
concerned.

The plan adopted by the Council sets up a division of labour between the Member States and the
Commission. All pre-departure and transport costs will be covered by the host countries while the
Commission will undertake certain co-ordination functions and will bear the cost of reintegration
measures. Earlier in 2002, the Commission earmarked EUR 3,6 million to support qualified Afghan
nationals’ return to positions in the Afghan administration and to the private sector. In addition, with

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/53

regard to the return plan, the Commission has indicated that it is ready to earmark an indicative amount
of EUR 7 million out of budget line B7-667 to support measures facilitating reintegration of returnees
from Europe. The Commission will also devote some EUR 10 million to ensure sustainability of returns
regardless of whether these are returns from the region or further afield.

Regarding legal and protection issues, the return plan states clearly that the focus will be on voluntary
returns and includes legal and other safeguards. Forced returns can take place only in full compliance with
the 1951 Geneva Convention on the rights of Refugees and if all other legal possibilities for remaining in
the Union have been exhausted. Furthermore, it should be considered only if the person in question has
not, within a reasonable period of time, taken advantage of any assisted voluntary return programme.

The return plan also establishes a so-called Afghanistan Return Co-ordination Group. One of the main
terms of reference of this group is to set in motion the part of the return plan which states that ‘the
identification of returnees and the pace of return shall
take into consideration the best available
information of the situation on the ground, the possibilities of matching returns with reconstruction efforts
and the partnership between the Union and the Transitional Government of Afghanistan.’ The Commission
will chair this co-ordination group and take into consideration all relevant humanitarian aspects and best-
practice on phased return that duly reflect
In this framework, close
cooperation will be ensured with other relevant parties for the implementation of the return plan, in
particular UNHCR.

the situation on the ground.

(2003/C 242 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3335/02

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 November 2002)

Subject: Vaccinations and safety

During their lifetime, and for a variety of reasons, productive livestock are injected with a wide variety of
pharmaceutical preparations and vaccines.

In the Netherlands, it is routine veterinary and agricultural practice for as many injections as possible to be
given with the same needle. Needles are replaced only if they break or if they cannot penetrate an animal’s
hide for some other reason.

According to the WHO-Unicef-UNFPA Joint Statement (WHO/V&B/99.25), such methods of vaccination
are not applicable to human beings because of the high risk of infection, especially in the case of mass
vaccination campaigns. With regard to current veterinary practice, the risks of (cross) infection are much
too great.

Does the Commission take the view that, in the very near future, the precautionary principle should also
be applied in the case of (preventive) mass vaccinations?

Does the Commission share my view that, with regard to the vaccination of productive livestock, needles
should be totally sterilised or disinfected?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2003)

The Commission shares the views of the Honourable Member to a large extent.

Recourse to the precautionary principle will always apply if potentially dangerous effects deriving from a
phenomenon, product or process have been identified and if scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to
be determined with sufficient certainty.

The use of sterile or adequately disinfected needles on animals to be injected with drugs or vaccines, as
well as many other veterinary actions, is a good veterinary practice aimed at preventing transmission of
disease agents between animals.