WRITTEN QUESTION E-0357/03 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Travellers.
Date: 2003-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, Roma, criminal law, expulsion from housing, free movement of persons, judicial reform, ordinary court of law, ownership, right of establishment

C 268 E/96

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

(2003/C 268 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0357/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject: Travellers

Is the Commission aware of the implications of recent legislative change, particularly in Ireland, that

1.
have caused an increase in traveller communities in neighbouring Member States?

2. Will the Commission describe these changes and also state whether they may potentially infringe any
Treaty provisions including the Copenhagen criteria and those on the right of establishment and freedom
of movement?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

1.
According to the Commission’s information, the recent legislative change adopted in Ireland consists
in the insertion into the Housing Bill of a clause that has the effect of amending the Criminal Justice
(Public Order) Act, 1994, in such a way as to make trespass a matter for the criminal, as opposed to the
civil, courts. This amendment will mean that a landowner, believing himself to have been trespassed upon,
will be able to seek the assistance of the police, rather that fight his case alone through the civil courts.

The law will apply to people who seek to live temporarily on land that is not their own and therefore to
travellers if they incur in such behaviour. With the force of criminal sanction, the police will be able to
order persons trespassing to move on.

However, the Commission is not aware that this legislation has caused an increase in traveller communities
in neighbouring Member States.

2.
The Commission considers, on the basis of the information it has, that the above mentioned
legislation does not infringe any Treaty provisions including those relating to freedom of establishment and
freedom of movement.

(2003/C 268 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0363/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject: Holding company called ‘Newco’ belonging to Rome City Council (cid:1) doubts as to whether it

complies with legislation on public services

Rome City Council recently presented a draft decision setting up a limited company to be responsible for
the unified management of all the companies in which the Council has shares, many of which currently
carry out activities defined as services of general interest.

The Council’s share in these companies is substantial, even if it does not constitute total control, and
together they would form a group called the ‘Rome City Council Group’. It is supposed to ensure the
pursuit of public interests and justify the granting of special or exclusive rights for the execution of the
duties deriving from them.

However, the transaction envisaged by the Council would involve turning over all the shares held by the
Council to a new company which, although 97 % of it would be owned by the Council, envisages a
decision-making mechanism for fundamental issues which would not fully involve the Council. In actual
fact, the member representing the Council would be appointed by the Mayor and, contrary to the
provisions of Article 42(e) and (l) of the Unified Text governing local authorities (Legislative Decree