WRITTEN QUESTION E-3790/02 by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission. Treatment of tourists by police officers in the applicant countries.
Date: 2003-01-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bulgaria, EU national, accession to the European Union, border control, corruption, offence, police checks, tourism

C 70 E/24

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

It will now be possible for Lithuania and Russia, with the participation of the Union, to ensure that transit
of people between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia takes place as smoothly as possible while respecting
Lithuania’s sovereignty and the obligations Lithuania has agreed to take on under the Community’s acquis.
Thus, direct rail passengers will gradually be required to obtain additional travel documentation from
1 January 2003. In addition to the possibility of obtaining a national Lithuanian visa there will from 1 July
2003, be the option of a ‘Facilitated Rail Transit Document’ which passengers may request on reserving a
ticket and which will be issued by the Lithuanian authorities.

4.
The General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) conclusions of 30 September 2002 and
22 October 2002, confirmed by the Brussels European Council on 30 October 2002, state that, while the
Union should explore, in full cooperation with the Republic of Lithuania, the feasibility of visa-free travel
by non-stop trains for Russian citizens travelling between the Kaliningrad region and the rest of Russia,
any eventual decision on such a scheme: ‘could only be taken by an enlarged Union, on the basis of a
thorough evaluation of
the political and legal aspects and once the technical obstacles have been
overcome.’

The GAERC conclusions of 22 October 2002 further agree that: ‘A decision to launch a feasibility study in
2003 by independent consultants will be taken by the Union with the agreement of Lithuania when there
is agreement with Lithuania on the Terms of Reference for the study’

The Union/Russia Summit on 11 November 2002, therefore, agreed that the Commission would, as soon
as possible after the Copenhagen European Council
initiate the process of
developing Terms of Reference for a study on visa free travel by high-speed non-trains in cooperation in
Lithuania.

(12/13 December 2002),

In this context, it is clear that neither the technical, political nor legal feasibility of such trains has been
established. The Commission has therefore made no proposal, nor the Council discussed, the prospects for
Community subsidies, or designated any specific rail route connecting Kaliningrad with mainland Russia.

(2004/C 70 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3790/02

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Treatment of tourists by police officers in the applicant countries

An inquiry carried out by ANWB (cid:1) the largest Dutch organisation active in the field of tourism, leisure
and travel (cid:1) has revealed that reports have been coming in of corruption among police officers in the
applicant countries in their treatment of foreign tourists. There have been many instances of tourists being
improperly stopped and forced to pay on-the-spot fines. For example, there is a series of successive border
controls at the Bulgarian border, with money having to be paid at each one for permission to continue or
on the grounds of alleged infringements (of the speed limit, say). In most cases, tourists are asked to hand
over their passports, and the officials do not return the passports until money has been handed over.

Is the Commission aware of tourists (from EU Member States) being treated in this way in the applicant
countries?

What is the Commission doing to prevent tourists from being improperly stopped and fined?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Considering that the criteria for membership agreed by the Copenhagen European Council
in 1993
(21/22 June 1993) include the guaranteeing of the rule of law and human rights, the Commission attaches
great importance to the development of effective and non-discriminatory law enforcement in all candidate
countries. The Commission monitors respect of this commitment and informs the Parliament and the
Member States periodically through its Regular Reports.

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/25

The case cited by the Honourable Member concerns Bulgaria and the Commission is not aware that this is
a problem experienced across all candidate countries. As concerns Bulgaria, the Commission clearly states
in the 2002 Regular Report that police corruption is perceived to be a problem and that cases of bribery
in the traffic and border police have been raised by Union citizens driving in and through Bulgaria.
Following the Commission’s request
the Union/Bulgaria
Association Committee, the issue will continue to be discussed in the framework of both the Europe
Agreement and the negotiations. Bulgaria’s progress in this area will be continuously monitored until the
date of accession.

for improvements at

the last meeting of

The fight against corruption is considered to be a priority for PHARE assistance in Bulgaria and four anti-
corruption projects were approved in 2002. One of these exclusively covers corruption within the police
force.

Further to the complaints from Union citizens received by the Commission, the Commission has been
presented with detailed information on apparent corruption-related cases which closely resemble the cases
reported by ANWB, and ‘Stichting Inspraakorgaan Turken’ in the Netherlands. The Commission will invite
Bulgaria to take appropriate measures in order to prevent incidents of the specific character described in
the complaints and to inform the Commission of the results of its actions. The Commission will inform
the Honourable Member of the reply.

(2004/C 70 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3820/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Movement of the euro against other currencies

(9 January 2003)

How closely has the Commission studied the movement of the euro against other major currencies on the
world market?

Which currency has fluctuated most, the euro or the Swedish krona, against each of the three currencies,
the US dollar, the Japanese yen and the pound sterling, since 1 January 1999?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

The Commission is in charge of the multilateral surveillance and for this purpose the Commission
monitors economic and financial developments in each Member State and in the Community as well.
In this context the Commission monitors the euro’s movements against other currencies and its impact on
the euro area economy.

The foreign exchange rate is a relative price. Variations in the exchange rate between two countries can
occur either by developments in the home country, or by developments in the foreign country.
The experience with floating exchange rate regimes shows that exchange rate movements can be large.
Standard measures of dispersion can be calculated as an indication of a currency’s variation against other
factors that are not always
currencies, bearing in mind that currency variations depend on several
anchored in changes in relative fundamental factors. If a change in a currency pair is the result of a change
in relative fundamental factors, such a currency movement may be warranted. Conversely, if a change in a
currency pair cannot be attributed to any change in relative fundamental factors, that movement could be
considered unwarranted. Hence, exchange rate variation as such has little informative value on its own; the
factors behind an exchange rate move must also be considered.

The table below displays some standard measures of dispersion, such as the standard deviation and
variance, over the period 1 January 1999 to 19 December 2002. According to these measures, the relation
between the Swedish krona and the US dollar (USD) have displayed a greater dispersion than the relation