WRITTEN QUESTION P-0096/03 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission. Adjustment to the arrangements for integrating the Canary Islands into the EU as regards immigration.
Date: 2003-01-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Canary Islands, EU migration policy, European integration, application of EU law, external border of the EU, free movement of persons, illegal migration, residence permit, rights of aliens

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/71

(2003/C 268 E/073)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0096/03

by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 January 2003)

Subject: Adjustment
immigration

to the arrangements for integrating the Canary Islands into the EU as regards

A significant event in the recent history of Europe as a community was the 1991 adjustment to the
arrangements for integrating the Canary Islands (an outermost region, an archipelago and an EU external
border) which was based on Article 25(4) of Spain’s Act of Accession to the European Communities and
which was intended to minimise the detrimental social, economic and environmental effects which such
integration might have. Various sectors (cid:1) agriculture in particular (cid:1) were affected by the adjustment, for
which reason a programme of specific options (Poseican) was introduced. This was recently revised after
10 years in operation.

Some experts believe this to have been a missed opportunity to adjust the Community integration
arrangements in other areas such as immigration, a social phenomenon which arose in the Canary Islands
at the time of integration and which in recent years has acquired social and economic significance on
account of the islands’ rapid population growth and the impact which this has had on the territory of the
archipelago, which is environmentally sensitive, fragile and highly vulnerable.

This has prompted a broad (and sometimes stormy) debate within the islands’ society on how to regulate
the currently excessive volume of immigration in an orderly fashion, possibly through the adoption of
certain specific measures (temporary and proportionate in nature) whose legal basis would be certain
provisions contained in Article 37(1) of the Canary Islands’ Statute of Autonomy, in Article 138(1) of the
Spanish Constitution and in the European Treaties, in particular Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty adopted in
Amsterdam in 1997.

In view of this situation and taking into account what is stated in Article 25(4) of Spain’s Act of Accession
to the European Communities, does the Commission think that the immigration-related arrangements for
integrating the Canary Islands into Europe could be adjusted by means of a special Protocol on foreigners’
residence and employment? If so, what procedure would have to be followed?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2003)

The Commission does not believe that the Treaties should be amended to introduce special arrangements
for the Canary Islands which would restrict the fundamental right of EU citizens to free movement under
Article 18 of the EC Treaty and Article 45 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. On the contrary, it has
proposed a directive, currently being discussed by the Council and Parliament, to strengthen that right
throughout the Union (1).

Under Article 63(3) of the EC Treaty, the Council is to adopt measures on immigration policy within the
following areas: conditions of entry and residence, and standards on procedures for the issue by Member
States of long-term visas and residence permits, including those for the purpose of family reunion, as well
as illegal immigration and illegal residence, including repatriation of illegal residents.

The Seville European Council attached the greatest importance to the fight against illegal immigration;
from that standpoint, the measures to be taken to follow up the Seville conclusions at both national and
Community levels would be applicable within the Canary Islands. Special arrangements to combat illegal
immigration are not necessary as the measures are designed to counter illegal immigration as effectively as
possible throughout the European Union.

As regards the regulation of legal immigration of third country nationals, the Commission has proposed a
legislative framework for the admission and the conditions of residence of such persons. These proposed

C 268 E/72

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

directives do not stipulate the number of persons allowed in, as that is a decision for each Member State.
The Seville European Council also pointed out that immigration policy should also take account of the
reception capacity of the Union and its Member States.

(1) Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the right of citizens of the Union and their family
members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, COM(2001) 257 final, OJ C 270,
25.9.2001.

(2003/C 268 E/074)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0108/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2003)

Subject: Funding the recovery of the Joola ferry (cid:1) additional questions

The answer to my earlier question (E-3319/02 (1)) begs further questions.

The 8th EDF is not used up for Senegal.

In the view of the Commission, can funds for recovering the bodies of the victims and salvaging the ferry
come from the 8th EDF, if Senegal agrees?

Does the Commission not have a moral and political duty to coordinate the recovery operation? Or does
the Commission not wish to be involved in any way, and will it leave it to the affected Member States
(France, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands) to recover their own citizens themselves?

Is Europe going to fail to extend help to the victims, although its would make funds available immediately
if a similar disaster were to take place off its own coast?

(1) See page 29.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Commission cannot use the financial resources of the eighth European Development Fund (EDF) as
they are already earmarked for specific operations determined with the country as part of the cooperation
strategy.

The Commission fully understands the concern expressed and the importance of the issue at hand;
however, it must stress that the responsibility for taking any kind of initiative concerning the Joola ferry
lies first and foremost with the Senegalese authorities.

Moreover, recovering the bodies of EU citizens is not
included in the objectives of development
cooperation with ACP countries, as defined in Article 177 of the EC Treaty and in the Cotonou Agreement.

(2003/C 268 E/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0127/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Inquiry regarding the ‘Prestige’

On 21 November 2002 the European Parliament meeting in plenary adopted a resolution on the disaster
caused by the tanker ‘Prestige’, which included the following paragraph:

[The European Parliament] calls on the Commission to conduct an inquiry to determine who was
responsible for and the circumstances surrounding the disaster and the respective identities and roles
of all of the individuals involved, focusing on: the type of vessel and the causes of the accident, the